Bitcoin – Page 2 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

The end of blockchains ..?

Some thought on where ‘money’ is going.

On the one hand, there will still be the fear that the ultimate-spread of blockchain’s control could quite easily devolve into coalitions and cliques, if not worse, when the heavyweights out there put their (computing) power to it — and what damage would quantum computing do, or could that (be made to …!?) turn the tables in the absolute opposite direction ..?
We’d be back at square one, with the general public having to trust some ‘trusted’ third party/parties and how dismal is what we have produced in terms of ‘governments’ through the ages. Or, in the opposition, trust nirvana nears ..?

On the other hand, we have the (d!)evolution of money through the ages already, when after barter trade money was introduced as neutral intermediary — in the form of value-preserving, rare hence very difficult to (re)produce and hopefully hard to fake goods like gold. Then, we switched to more abstract money media, with an intellectual exchange-ability to back to gold through the gold standard. Then, even further off, that link was released and we ended up with thin air as cover for our ‘money’ as it stands today. The cover, convertibility, is some vague notion of some abstract constructs (and as said, very often failed before or slowly is, as we write) like ‘the government’ that would repay all ‘money’ lost with … drum roll … ‘money’!
And, with blockchain technology and trust, we’re moving even further off. Combine this with Graeber’s Debt, and we have an even thinner notion of where we are and are going with the whole concept. ‘Money’ being no zero-sum game as it is created by (almost) full-sum net debt increase to start with. No wonder other initiatives spring up, time and time again following the latest possibilities created by, e.g., decreases in transaction costs (including agency theory style) by the birth of the Internet. All focused on Trust in one way or another, to do business in order to satisfy one’s Maslovian needs. (Or not; see some previous posts e.g. here.)

Well, I’ll leave you to consider your sins, with:
20150911_173935
[Sheltering under bare money-making, for fun; Amsterdam]

Upping crypto

Lukewarm protests against Free Crypto, and trawling the oceans completely empty for metadata if not more … Seems like a two-faced two-front ‘battle’ that may even be tiring to uphold (face): Once one is into meta because it gives so much more information (sic) than mere data (content), one would need much less access to actual data, wouldn’t one? And, if then publicly having postured to not be able to break into crypto stuff (where one can with near-certainty break into all stack levels below it, down to the BIOS if not chip level!) almost meaning that for sure one can, why would one push too hard to make it illegal ..?
The only thing one can think of, is that declaring it illegal somehow block another’s access to plausible deniability or to Fifth Amendment claims (that are fundamental for any decent human society). So… that’s what’s going on. …?

And this points to countering TLAs by working with crypto at a higher level; producing encrypted content that looks pretty darn innocuous until decrypted; not seeing scrambled info but at a higher-to-lower-to-transport-and-back-to-higher avenue, transferring Information over seemingly white noise Data signals. Clever… Stego. How’s things on that front (?) ..!?

Also:

[Relevant: Pic may not exist. …]

Assurance… No; continuous blockchainproofing will be

Accountants (of the certifying kind) have seen the light of continuous assurance coming. The vast majority of them reacted by being the rabbits [certainly not of the Winnebago / Native American trickster type ..!]; though assuming the headlights were and are still very distant, sitting quite still…
A select few have responded differently – embracing some change as inevitable, researching how Continuous Assurance might be, in times of proliferating XBRL and the like.

That’s OK. And laudable for the Virtue of facing the danger not ducking.

But … all of the assurance industry is still lock, stock and barrel dependent on being the Third Party in agency models.
And now, blockchain tech is around the corner, promising all sorts of unbelievable new ways of transferring trust. If only one could build some system(ic) in which any principal would be able to Read all minute transactions of an agent, and would be able to reliably (…) make sense of it – then the information quality (read: [non]uncertainty, [non] information (access, processing capability) difference) would be immediately visible and actionable. Undoing the need for a trusted third party to give a second opinion that is so beaten down to platitudes anyway that the usefulness has deteriorated way beyond what third parties themselves still believe (if they wouldn’t, who would…?). And note the italics of trusted.

Trusted – the thing that blockchain technology spreads so evenly, so extremely to the opposite of the ultimate non-spread of one person/entity.

Oh well. You know now, and this:

[Relevant if you think it through: Warped reflections. NY of course]

Helpful ‘failure’

This here ‘problem’ may actually not be a let-down, but a help in getting acceptance for xyzCoin (e.g., the most interesting zippcoin project!). Or ..? Your comments, please.

And, of course:

Coining an answer; Bit-passports

The answer to the final question (“… why the governments didn’t invent this sooner,” he says. “I came up with this over a weekend in my spare time, why didn’t they? …”) in this here very interesting piece, is easy: Enrollment Problem Plus Risk Management.

But still, the idea of using Bitcoin crypto style solutions to the ‘international’ passport problem is useful, and might work. In some way. Not this self-certification one. If you’re aware of how long PGP has been around, you should be aware of all the failures of any form of tribal-cred-branching-out IDs.
And, a great many governments may just not have a sufficiently pressing need for a new passport scheme. The risks of the current model, are known and (again: apparently) manageable.

So I’ll leave you with:
[Apologising calmly. And frequently.]

Clustering the future

Was clustering my themes for the future of this blog. Came up with:
[Sizes, colours, or text sizes not very reflective of the attention the various subjects will get]
Low sophistication tool, eh? Never mind. Do mind, to comment. On the various things that would need to be added. As yes I know, I have left much out of the picture, for brevity purposes. But will want to hear whether I missed major things before I miss them, in next year’s posts. Thank you!
And, for the latter,
[Bah-t’yó! indeed]

A simple explanation of Bitcoin “Sidechains”

Noteworthy. In one sense, a dilution. In another, a move to widespread adoption and acceptance. From which, probably, some unforeseeable, maybe even weird, whole new societal developments may spring.
And, for the heck of it:
[Pre-1998 analog to digital, FLlW @ Bear Run obviously]

Note (bank-, bankable); ICYMI

Hmmmmm… Who would be able to mine the easy pickings already, in the Bitcoin world ..? Who has sufficient resources, old-money wise and miners wise ..?

As the firsts through the gate may gain an insurmountable head start at the game of the future. Also, re this on the as yet ill-understood, hardly visible / overseeable spin-off world. DACs are just one part. When incumbent countries’ / nations’ and supra-governments find themselves competing not only with each other but also with anon societies existing virtually (non-geographically – though in the end, physical servers will have to be somewhere), will the latter be re-invented like wheels, with or without preventing the failures of history …?

Since it will be very interesting, sociologically, but still years away (I think…), this:
[Guess where. Netherlands]

The eruption of ~coins

[Hidden treasure]

So, it wasn’t too sudden that this new money was minted…

“If you don’t like any (gold) standard, why don’t you invent your own ..?”

[Added a couple of hours later: http://bitinfocharts.com/ has a nice overview. Probably quite incomplete…]

Designed/designated value

[Casa de inquietante Musica…]

Just read somewhere that Litecoin had jumped from $100 to $30.000 in one year. Bitcoin, same sort of jumps up and down all over the place. And other, less known eCurrencies will probably have the same patterns.

My question now is: Would someone know how to establish the proper value vis-à-vis ‘old’ currencies – with all their absolute sameness as described in an earlier post. Given that everything is artificial (and economically, relatively! simple) about these ‘new’ currencies, there should be some formula to determine its true ‘value’ (however expressed..!), shouldn’t it?
Yes, I know, it’s whatever the markte price would be (expressed in something as extremely flimsily, asymptotically non-, defined as the ‘dollar’ unit of value). But surely, we may construct some formula now that the underpinning elements of value can be established so much better ..?