This Cryptocurrency Bull Believes Bitcoin Could Hit $1 Million in Less Than a Decade

This Cryptocurrency Bull Believes Bitcoin Could Hit $1 Million in Less Than a Decade

Will bitcoin make investors rich, or leave them disappointed?

If you think marijuana stocks have been on fire this year, then you haven't taken a peek at cryptocurrency returns. At one point earlier this month, the aggregate cryptocurrency market cap topped $161 billion, which represented an 810% increase from where they ended on Dec. 31, 2016. To give this some perspective, the average cryptocurrency over the first nine months of the year has delivered the same return as the broad-based S&P 500 over the past 27 years! Stocks are traditionally the greatest wealth creator, so this is a true eye-opener.

Leading the charge higher have been the two most renowned digital currencies, bitcoin and Ethereum. Bitcoin has risen by nearly 300% since the year began through Sept. 24, 2017, while Ethereum is up better than 3,400%. The duo now sports respective market caps of $61.3 billion and $26.9 billion, which account for well over half the aggregate value of all cryptocurrencies.

 The most bullish bet in bitcoin

Yet, in spite of the massive gains we've already seen, some industry pundits believe cryptocurrencies — and more specifically, bitcoin — could head considerably higher. In May, Saxo Bank analyst Kay Van-Peterson called for bitcoin to hit $100,000 per coin within the next 10 years. Mind you, this is the same analyst that called bitcoin to hit $2,000 back when it was valued at $754 in Dec. 2016. Such a move would imply a 2,650% return still yet to come.

But that's far from the only bullish estimate. Perhaps the loftiest price target for bitcoin comes from Wences Casares, CEO of bitcoin wallet Xapo, and a member of PayPal's board of directors. While speaking at the Consensus 2017 conference in New York earlier this year, Casares suggested that bitcoin could hit $1 million per coin within the next decade. That would be a return of more than 27,300%, assuming Casares' price target on bitcoin was hit. Why such optimism? "The Internet doesn't have a currency and it desperately needs one," said Casares. Nevertheless, he also urged some degree of caution. "The biggest mistake [would] be to buy more bitcoin than you can afford to lose. The big mistake is [also] not to own any bitcoin. Put 1% of your net worth in bitcoin and forget about it for 10 years."

The case for $1 million

But the question we should be asking is this: Could bitcoin really hit $1 million? If you had asked me a year ago if bitcoin $5,000 was possible, I'd probably have laughed hysterically, but bitcoin, with the aid of a little bit of rounding, essentially hit $5,000 per coin in early September. Perhaps the best shot bitcoin would have at $1 million would be if its blockchain technology became the choice of enterprises around the globe. Blockchain is nothing more than the digital decentralized network that underlies bitcoin and records transactions in a secure manner. Because blockchain can be open source, it makes altering data within the network incredibly difficult.

Less than two months ago, bitcoin forked into two separate currencies, bitcoin and bitcoin cash, with the original bitcoin network implementing the SegWit2x upgrade. This upgrade is designed to take some of the information within the bitcoin network off the network in order to improve transaction settlement times, as well as lower fees and improve capacity. The move is directly designed to appeal to enterprises, which are primarily testing Ethereum's network in pilot and small-scale projects. If bitcoin manages to lure those businesses to use its blockchain technology and it continues to gain appeal as a mode of payment with big business, then a lofty price target isn't impossible — albeit $1 million does seem exceptionally unlikely over the next decade.

Why this price target is probably a fantasy

Despite the bullishness surrounding bitcoin, there's also the possibility that it could implode from its current levels. While blockchain could be its most logical source of long-term gains, there's absolutely no guarantee that bitcoin will be the choice of businesses worldwide. We also have no way to accurately value what blockchain is worth, given that the technology is purely nascent at this point. Contending that it could be worth billions, or tens of billions, of dollars is nothing more than a blind dart throw.

There are also concerns about regulation and the decentralization of bitcoin's network. Recent crackdowns on initial coin offerings in China, and the announcement that China will, in due time, shut down its domestic cryptocurrency exchanges, reduces the legitimacy of cryptocurrencies like bitcoin. Without a central trading hub, it can increase volatility and emotions with digital currencies. However, the most dangerous aspect of bitcoin could be that emotional factor. Given that cryptocurrencies aren't backed by any government, financial institutions have largely kept their distance. This has left the pricing of digital currencies to be decided by retail investors, who are far more prone to trade on emotion rather than fundamentals. And once again, even fundamentals are unknown when it comes to cryptocurrencies.

How do we know investors are processing things emotionally rather than logically when it comes to bitcoin? Take a look at both the Bitcoin Investment Trust (NASDAQOTH:GBTC) and First Bitcoin Capital Corp. (NASDAQOTH:BITCF).

The Bitcoin Investment Trust is an ETF run by Grayscale that merely hangs onto bitcoin. As of Aug. 31, 2017, the fund held 172,721 bitcoin, which means that any investor could multiply the current bitcoin price by this figure to determine an accurate net asset value (NAV). As of Sept. 24, this ETFs NAV was $650.5 million. But on Friday, Sept. 22, the Bitcoin Investment Trust ended the trading session with a market cap of $1.13 billion, or a premium of 74%! In other words, investors are paying a premium of 74% over the current value of the ETF's holdings, which makes no sense whatsoever.

By a similar token, in August, investors wound up pushing penny stock First Bitcoin Capital to a nearly $1 billion valuation despite the company having very little in way of tangible cryptocurrencies operations. A look at its balance sheet reveals very little cash, and its only assets are gold-based rights from when the company held gold-mining assets in Venezuela back in 2013 before switching to cryptocurrency operations for good in 2014. Yet, according to investors as recently as August, a company with just over $46,000 in revenue was worth nearly $1 billion. Emotions can only carry an asset so far, and bitcoin looks to be on the verge of a possible bursting bubble.

Chuck Reynolds


Marketing Dept
Contributor
Please click either Link to Learn more about -Bitcoin.
Interested or have Questions. Call me 559-474-4614

Do You Need a Blockchain?

Do You Need a Blockchain?

According to a study released this July

by Juniper Research, more than half the world’s largest companies are now researching blockchain technologies with the goal of integrating them into their products. Projects are already under way that will disrupt the management of health care records, property titles, supply chains, and even our online identities. But before we remount the entire digital ecosystem on blockchain technology, it would be wise to take stock of what makes the approach unique and what costs are associated with it.

Blockchain technology is, in essence, a novel way to manage data. As such, it competes with the data-management systems we already have. Relational databases, which orient information in updatable tables of columns and rows, are the technical foundation of many services we use today. Decades of market exposure and well-funded research by companies like Oracle Corp. have expanded the functionality and hardened the security of relational databases. However, they suffer from one major constraint: They put the task of storing and updating entries in the hands of one or a few entities, whom you have to trust won’t mess with the data or get hacked.

Blockchains, as an alternative, improve upon this architecture in one specific way—by removing the need for a trusted authority. With public blockchains like Bitcoin and Ethereum, a group of anonymous strangers (and their computers) can work together to store, curate, and secure a perpetually growing set of data without anyone having to trust anyone else. Because blockchains are replicated across a peer-to-peer network, the information they contain is very difficult to corrupt or extinguish. This feature alone is enough to justify using a blockchain if the intended service is the kind that attracts censors. A version of Facebook built on a public blockchain, for example, would be incapable of censoring posts before they appeared in users’ feeds, a feature that Facebook reportedly had under development while the company was courting the Chinese government in 2016.

I Want a Blockchain!

Do you really need a blockchain? Asking yourself a handful of the questions in this interactive can set you on the right path to an answer. You’ll note that there are more reasons not to use a blockchain than there are reasons to do so. And if you do choose a blockchain, be ready for slower transaction speeds.

However, removing the need for trust comes with limitations. Public blockchains are slower and less private than traditional databases, precisely because they have to coordinate the resources of multiple unaffiliated participants. To import data onto them, users often pay transaction fees in amounts that are constantly changing and therefore difficult to predict. And the long-term status of the software is unpredictable as well. Just as no one person or company manages the data on a public blockchain, no one entity updates the software. Rather, a whole community of developers contributes to the open-source code in a process that, in Bitcoin at least, lacks formal governance.

Given the costs and uncertainties of public blockchains, they’re not the answer to every problem. “If you don’t mind putting someone in charge of a database…then there’s no point using a blockchain, because [the blockchain] is just a more inefficient version of what you would otherwise do,” says Gideon Greenspan, the CEO of Coin Sciences, a company that builds technologies on top of both public and permissioned blockchains. With this one rule, you can mow down quite a few blockchain fantasies. Online voting, for example, has inspired many well-intentioned blockchain developers, but it probably does not stand to gain much from the technology.

“I find myself debunking a blockchain voting effort about every few weeks,” says Josh Benaloh, the senior cryptographer at Microsoft Research. “It feels like a very good fit for voting, until you dig a couple millimeters below the surface.” Benaloh points out that tallying votes on a blockchain doesn’t obviate the need for a central authority. Election officials will still take the role of creating ballots and authenticating voters. And if you trust them to do that, there’s no reason why they shouldn’t also record votes. The headaches caused by open blockchains—the price volatility, low throughput, poor privacy, and lack of governance—can be alleviated, in part, by tweaking the structure of the technology, specifically by opting for a variation called a permissioned ledger.

“I find myself debunking a blockchain voting effort about every few weeks”

In a permissioned ledger, you avoid having to worry about trusting people, and you still get to keep some of the benefits of blockchain technology. The software restricts who can amend the database to a set of known entities. This one alteration removes the economic component from a blockchain. In a public blockchain, miners (the parties adding new data to the blockchain) neither know nor trust one another. But they behave well because they are paid for their work. By contrast, in a permissioned blockchain, the people adding data follow the rules not because they are getting paid but because other people in the network, who know their identities, hold them accountable.

Removing miners also improves the speed and data-storage capacity of a blockchain. In a public network, a new version of the blockchain is not considered final until it has spread and received the approval of multiple peers. That limits how big new blocks can be, because bigger blocks would take longer to get around. As of July, Bitcoin can handle a maximum of 7 transactions per second. Ethereum tops out at around 20 transactions per second. When blocks are added by fewer, known entities, they can hold more data without slowing things down or threatening the security of the blockchain. Greenspan of Coin Sciences claims that MultiChain, one of his company’s permissioned blockchain products, is capable of processing 1,000 transactions per second. But even this pales in comparison with the peak throughput of credit card transactions handled by Visa—an amount The Washington Post reports as being 10 times that number.

As the name perhaps suggests, permissioned ledgers also enable more privacy than public blockchains. The software restricts who can access a permissioned blockchain, and therefore who can see it. It’s not a perfect solution; you’re still revealing your data to those within the network. You wouldn’t, for example, want to run a permissioned blockchain with your competitors and use it to track information that gives away trade secrets. But permissioned blockchains may enable applications where data needs to be shielded only from the public at large. “If you are willing for the activity on the ledger to be visible to the participants but not to the outside world, then your privacy problem is solved,” says Greenspan.

Finally, using a permissioned blockchain solves the problem of governance. Bitcoin is a perfect demonstration of the risks that come with building on top of an open-source blockchain project. For two years, the developers and miners in Bitcoin have waged a political battle over how to scale up the system. This summer, the sparring went so far that one faction split off to form its own version of Bitcoin. The fight demonstrated that it’s impossible to say with any certainty what Bitcoin will look like in the next month, year, or decade—or even who will decide that. And the same goes for every public blockchain.

With permissioned ledgers, you know who’s in charge. The people who update the blockchain are the same people who update the code. How those updates are made depends on what governance structure the participants in the blockchain collectively agree to.

Public blockchains are a tremendous improvement on traditional databases if the things you worry most about are censorship and universal access. Under those circumstances, it might just be worth it to build on a technology that sacrifices cost, speed, privacy, and predictability. And if that sacrifice isn’t worth it, a more limited version of Satoshi Nakamoto’s original blockchain may balance out your needs. But you should also consider the possibility that you don’t need a blockchain at all.

Chuck Reynolds


Marketing Dept
Contributor
Please click either Link to Learn more about -Bitcoin.
Interested or have Questions. Call me 559-474-4614

North Korean hackers’ attempts to steal bitcoin are a huge wake-up call

North Korean hackers’ attempts to steal bitcoin are a huge wake-up call

  • North Korean hackers' attempts to steal bitcoin to finance the Kim Jong Un regime bring a new sense of urgency to the need to rein in the cryptocurrency.
  • One big way to rein in bitcoin would be to treat it like a commodity like gold or oil. Each bitcoin should be accounted for, taxed and insured.
  • Law-enforcement officials in all countries should first aim to catch the big fish — groups like ISIS, North Korea, and terrorists — who are using bitcoin for illegal activity.
     
     
     
     
     

For years, bitcoin critics have warned us

about how the cryptocurrency provides way too much opportunity for criminals to launder money. Even JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon slammed bitcoin recently, saying it is a "fraud" that would be shut down at some point. But a recent report that shows North Korean hackers are increasing their attempts to steal bitcoin from South Korea may be the final straw that leads regulators to rein in bitcoin. The report, from cybersecurity firm FireEye, found three attacks against South Korean cryptocurrency exchanges traced to North Korean hackers between May and July of this year.

"The ability of regimes like Kim Jong Un's North Korea to mine or steal cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin is a new reason to be cautious in treating these commodities as currencies," University of Georgia Professor Jeffrey Dorfman said in an email exchange. "While rogue states have practiced counterfeiting even longer than they have been computer hacking, counterfeiters are easier to catch. Once a cryptocurrency is stolen, it is virtually impossible to stop the new owner from spending it, and doing so in untraceable ways." In other words, we're no longer talking about hypothetical and faceless criminals anymore. We've all seen the laughing faces of Kim Jong Un and his generals after every new missile test, including last month's most terrifying launch of an intercontinental

ballistic missile.

"How would the U.S. and other nations rein in bitcoin exactly? And who would do it? The simple answer is for the government to make sure bitcoin is forever treated like a commodity like gold, oil, or even fine art and collectible cars."

Now, imagine if there was evidence Osama bin Laden had used bitcoin to finance the 9/11 attacks and that information came out in the first few days and weeks after those attacks. Remember the sense of urgency and even legal carelessness that characterized the drafting and bipartisan passing of the Patriot Act after 9/11? How would the U.S. and other nations rein in bitcoin exactly? And who would do it? The simple answer is for the government to make sure bitcoin is forever treated like a commodity like gold, oil, or even fine art and collectible cars. Criminals and rogue states could still use bitcoin in many ways, but it would be much more cumbersome to use than physical or online cash.

For example, treating it as a commodity would mean that each bitcoin would have to be accounted for and taxed more accurately like gold bars. Those making the argument that bitcoin exchanges need a reserve requirement are also on the right track. That's because by imposing that reserve requirement, shadier bitcoin markets and exchanges would be forced out of the business. That too would further discourage criminal involvement.

Another commodity-like aspect that should be introduced into the bitcoin world is insurance. Just like you can insure jewelry and valuable art, encouraging bitcoin owners to insure their property would add a level of private scrutiny to the market that should also make criminal use that much harder to achieve. The U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission, (CFTC), would be the logical government agency to take on the job of enforcing these changes, but bitcoin is such a major entity now that nothing short of a White House decree with the full backing of the Justice Department and even the Department of Homeland Security could set this process in motion.

"I think digital currency can have a bright future," former CFTC Commissioner Bart Chilton said in an email. "They just have not hit on the correct way to do it with various protections, portability of use, and of security in an underlying value (like commodities do provide)." Making this change would also mean leaning on countries like Japan, that began accepting bitcoin as legal currency in April, to reverse or add new restrictions to that move. The fact that Japan is most squarely in Kim Jong Un's missile cross hairs, should make that argument somewhat easier to make in Tokyo now that we now of Pyongyang's bitcoin maneuvering.

But it would also mean focusing on the big fish first. A study issued in May by the Center for New American Security calls for law enforcement officials in all countries to prioritize their efforts on catching groups like ISIS, North Korea, and terrorists who are using bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Doing these things could go a long way toward ensuring those innocent investors who are simply trading bitcoin as a commodity don't lose everything overnight. But let's face it, it could also be a huge disruption to bitcoin investors if the cryptocurrency suddenly ceased to be so accessible to criminal entities. Some major bitcoin bears, like Intellyx president Jason Bloomberg, insist its entire value would be wiped out if criminals could no longer use it easily. This spring, Bloomberg wrote: "the only reason Bitcoin has value to anyone is because of the underlying value as a medium of exchange for lawbreakers. If we could flip a switch and eliminate all illegal uses of Bitcoin, there would be nothing left of the cybercurrency."

Bloomberg may be exaggerating about that; he's at least ignoring the non-criminal advantages of using bitcoin like its very low transaction fees and faster transaction speeds. LIU Post economics professor Panos Mourdoukoutas says the digital currency won't disappear and bitcoin will simply return back to its, "old role: a collectible currency for tech savvy enthusiasts." The words "collectible" and "enthusiasts" sure sound like the terms we use for commodities like rare coins, fine art, and sports souvenirs, don't they? And that brings us back to protecting innocent investors. One could make similar arguments about gold coins or diamonds having a special allure for criminals trying to move their money out of the law's reach. But the market has long put an inherent value on gold and diamonds that transcends whatever nefarious purposes they can sometimes serve.

That doesn't mean bitcoin isn't in a significant bubble right now. And the warnings made to bitcoin investors about the possibility of the bubble bursting have been loud and numerous for some time. But that's a far cry from saying it's worthless as anything but a tool for crooks, terrorists, and rogue dictators. There will be a drop in the value of bitcoin if it were more properly regulated and thought of as commodity, but investors wouldn't lose everything in that process. That seems like a win/win.

Chuck Reynolds


Marketing Dept
Contributor
Please click either Link to Learn more about -Bitcoin.
Interested or have Questions. Call me 559-474-4614

What is bitcoin? How does it work? and what affects its price?

What is bitcoin?
How does it work?
and what affects its price?

 

Few technologies have the ability to stir passionate online debate

and baffle the vast majority of the population as bitcoin. The virtual currency has been a constant source of interest and confusion since it thrust itself into the mainstream more than five years ago. But interest in bitcoin is now greater than ever. Its value has soared to above $4,000, a new high point, turning some people who hoarded vast amounts early on into millionaires. But why? Is bitcoin the future of currency? Is it currency at all? What is it for? And should I buy some? Read on to have your questions answered.

What is bitcoin?

Bitcoin is a digital currency created in 2009 that uses decentralised technology for secure payments and storing money that doesn't require banks or people's names. It was announced on an email circular as a way to liberate money in a similar way to how the internet made information free.

How does it work?

 

Bitcoin works on a public ledger called blockchain, which holds a decentralised record of all transactions that is updated and held by all users of the network. To create bitcoins, users must generate blocks on the network. Each block is created cryptographically by harnessing users' computer power and is then added to the blockchain, letting users earn by keeping the network running. A limit for how many bitcoins can be created is built into the system so the value can't be diluted.  The maximum amount is just under 21 million bitcoin. There are currently 15 million in circulation, each of which was worth more than $4,000 ($3,080) at the time of writing. 

 

What affects its price?

The price of a bitcoin has jumped up and down since it first entered the mainstream consciousness in 2013. That year prices rose by almost 10,000 per cent before the collapse of Mt Gox, the biggest online bitcoin exchange, sent it crashing. Prices slowly crept up after that but have since surged again. This is largely put down to regulators appearing to warm to bitcoin and the rise of initial coin offerings – a way for projects to raise money by selling cryptographic tokens similar to bitcoins. Many sceptics believe we are in the middle of a new bitcoin bubble while advocates say we are just beginning to see the rise of bitcoin.

Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? 

Satoshi Nakamoto is the mysterious creator of bitcoin and blockchain. Despite countless attempts to unmask the person or people behind the name, their identity has remained elusive. There have been numerous unsuccessful attempts by journalists to reveal the bitcoin founder. In a high-profile incident in 2014, Newsweek magazine relaunched with a feature outing Dorian Nakamoto, a 64-year-old Japanese-American man, as the creator. The affair, having fallen apart under scrutiny, ended with a car chase and the real Nakamoto refuting the allegations. 

The most recent candidate was Craig Wright, a former Australian academic, who claimed to be the bitcoin inventor. Wright wrote blog posts and gave interviews to Wired, BBC and the Economist in 2015 and 2016 saying he was behind bitcoin.After failing to provide unquestionable proof, Wright posted an apology message that said: "I believed that I could put the years of anonymity and hiding behind me. But, as the events of this week unfolded and I prepared to publish the proof of access to the earliest keys, I broke. I do not have the courage. I cannot."  

How many people use bitcoin?

There are as many as 5.8 million users that have cryptocurrency wallets, according to research from the University of Cambridge, the majority of whom use bitcoin. 

What is it used for? 

Bitcoin is has a range of uses, including funding companies, investing cash and transferring money without fees. It is commonly associated with criminal activity such as drug dealing, cyber crime and money laundering, since it can be near-impossible to tie a bitcoin wallet to any one individual. Bitcoin can be spent online and at select retailers in the UK. They include CEX stores, Dell's website, Your Sushi restaurants, and some pubs. A full list of online and offline businesses that accept bitcoin is available here. They can also be withdrawn at a couple of dozen bitcoin ATMs, which can be found here. Others simply hold their bitcoins, hoping they will accumulate in value and prove to be a lucrative investment. Its price is notoriously volatile, and early investors are now sitting on massive gains.

Should I invest in bitcoin?

Bitcoin is safeguarded against fraud and theft through independent and decentralised set up, as well as being free from transaction fees. It has also given great returns to some investors, with the price jumping from a few dollars at the beginning of 2013 to $1,100 by November. People who invested £2,000 five years ago would now be millionaires. After a few level years, its dollar price soared again this year, and it has peaked at around $4,200. But the price has also dropped in the past and left people out of pocket. Back in May it fell by $400 in a day.  

Chuck Reynolds


Marketing Dept
Contributor
Please click either Link to Learn more about -Bitcoin.
Interested or have Questions. Call me 559-474-4614

Bitcoin Climbs Back Above $4,000 As Wild Ride Continues

Bitcoin Climbs Back Above $4,000
As Wild Ride Continues

 

The value of one Bitcoin went back above the $4,000

mark on Wednesday, continuing a wild ride over the last couple months. Bitcoin—which was only worth $1,000 at the start of the year—previously broke the $4,000 barrier in mid-August before briefly clearing $5,000, but then a series of events brought it crashing down to below $3,000 a month later. Those events included J.P. Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon calling Bitcoin a "fraud" and Chinese regulators making a series of anti-Bitcoin moves, including banning initial coin offerings (a way of funding new startups by issuing tokens rather than shares) and reportedly cracking down on bitcoin exchanges in the country.

Bitcoin briefly topped $4,000 at the start of last week, but since then it settled down to around the $3,500 mark. Now it's back up, with a value of $4,059 at the time of writing on Wednesday morning. So, what's prompted this latest rally? It could be the current speculation that China's exchange crackdown is only temporary—a show of force ahead of the Communist Party Convention in October. The crackdown has been widely reported but never formally announced, and one of its supposed rationales is that people in China have been using Bitcoin to bet against the value of the yuan, as well as to get round local capital controls.

It may be that the rumors were aimed at ensuring stability in the crucial period ahead of next month's big event—they have certainly had an effect, leading major exchanges such as BTCChina to shut down their Chinese operations. However, whether or not the Chinese exchange ban gets formalized, it does seem that Bitcoin has resistance to the actions of that one country—even if it remains a highly turbulent game to be playing.

Chuck Reynolds


Marketing Dept
Contributor
Please click either Link to Learn more about -Bitcoin.
Interested or have Questions. Call me 559-474-4614

Bitcoin is popping

Bitcoin is popping

 A Bitcoin sign can be seen on display at a bar

in central Sydney, Australia, September 29, 2015. REUTERS/David Gray/Files(A Bitcoin sign can be seen on display at a bar in central Sydney, AustraliaThomson Reuters)Bitcoin enjoyed a reat start to the week. The digital coin, which has been sliding the past couple days amid uncertainty about the future of cryptocurrencies in China, was trading up over 7% at $3,928 per coin Monday morning. 

Reports on September 14 that Chinese regulators would require exchanges to voluntary shut bitcoin trading triggered a sell-off of nearly $1,000, bringing the price of the cryptocurrency below $3,000 for the first time in over a month. Within hours, however, bitcoin recouped most of those losses. Since Friday, bitcoin has stayed within the range of $3,600 to $3,800 per coin. But traders appear bullish, despite the uncertainty underpinning the market. 

Josh Olszwicz, a bitcoin trader, for instance, told Business Insider the news out of China won't have a long-term impact on bitcoin because it doesn't affect the cryptocurrency's blockchain, the underpinning technology of the coin. "If it doesn't affect the protocol, then it's not a real problem," he told Business Insider."The bitcoin cash shakeup was much more worrisome from my perspective, but even then the core bitcoin protocol remained unaffected."

On August 1, bitcoin forked into two different cryptocurrencies: bitcoin and bitcoin cash. Technical analysis reported by CoinDesk, the cryptocurrency news site, suggested a break of $3,800 would open the door to $4,200 or higher. "Such a move would add credence to last week's bullish doji reversal and higher lows pattern, and may open the doors for $4,300," CoinDesk's Omkar Godbole wrote. Bitcoin is up about 550% over the last year. 

Chuck Reynolds


Marketing Dept
Contributor
Please click either Link to Learn more about -Bitcoin.
Interested or have Questions. Call me 559-474-4614

Ethereum May Very Well Leave Bitcoin Eating Its Dust Over the Long Run

Ethereum May Very Well Leave Bitcoin Eating Its Dust Over the Long Run

Ethereum appears to have the preferred blockchain relative to bitcoin, but there's no guarantee either cryptocurrency has staying power.

 

Since the year began, there's been no hotter investment than cryptocurrencies.

Bitcoin and Ethereum, which are the one-two punch in terms of largest market cap among digital currencies, have returned about 300% and 3,200%, respectively, just since the year began. By comparison, it's taken the S&P 500 decades to return what Ethereum has for its investors in just under nine months.

Cryptocurrencies are skyrocketing for three reasons

Emotions have obviously played a critical role in pushing digital currency prices higher. Since financial institutions have either avoided cryptocurrencies like bitcoin and Ethereum, or are barred by management from trading them, it's left the price movement to the hands of retail investors. John and Jane Q. Investor are substantially more prone to having emotions sway their investment decisions than large investment institutions. Lately, the "don't miss the boat" mentality could very well be driving prices higher.

On a more fundamental basis, there's a lot of excitement surrounding the blockchain that underlies many of the top cryptocurrencies, including bitcoin and Ethereum. Blockchain is a digital decentralized network that records all transactions without the need for a financial intermediary, like a bank. Because these blockchains are often, to some degree, open-source networks, it makes altering data very difficult. Thus, blockchain could become the preferred peer-to-peer and business-to-business channel for transactions in the future for a variety of industries and sectors.

Even the U.S. dollar has given a boost to cryptocurrencies since the year began. The dollar recently hit a more than two-year low against the euro, and well over a one-year low against other major currencies. When the dollar weakens, it tends to lift U.S. exports, which is bound to make President Trump happy. On the other hand, it reduces the value of dollars being held by investors. Usually a falling dollar will send investors to seek a safe-haven store of value, like gold. Lately, though, they've been opting for the safety of bitcoin, the largest digital currency. However, bitcoin's tenure as the cryptocurrency of choice may not last much longer.

Bitcoin could wind up eating Ethereum's dust

With the full understanding that the cryptocurrency model itself has no guaranteed future, it's my suspicion that Ethereum has a better chance of long-term success than bitcoin. In fact, the early evidence suggests that Ethereum could leave bitcoin eating its dust in short order.

The major difference between the two digital-currency powerhouses comes down to their blockchain technology. Ethereum's blockchain has one key advantage over bitcoin's blockchain: its support of smart contract applications. Smart contracts, which, in their simplest form, are computer protocols that help to facilitate, verify, or enforce the negotiation of a contract, help to automate complex physical and financial supply-chain procedures and compliance processes. In plain English, it's a protocol within Ethereum's network geared at big businesses that should allow business-to-business and client-to-business deals to be done securely and efficiently. Ethereum already has a lot of interest in its blockchain, as evidenced by the more than 150 organizations that had joined the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance as of July 2017, including nine well-known brand-name companies. These organizations are testing out a version of Ethereum's blockchain in various pilot and small-scale programs. 

Comparatively, bitcoin is valued more as a payment platform than for its underlying blockchain technology. While there are some well-known businesses that have accepted bitcoin since 2014, its network has been at a distinct disadvantage to Ethereum's. Bitcoin has traditionally had higher transaction costs, long settlement times, and for a while, its capacity was challenged. A recent fork in bitcoin, which saw the digital currency split in two — bitcoin and bitcoin cash — may help close the gap a bit, but that remains to be seen. This fork involved bitcoin's engineers utilizing the SegWit2x upgrade, which lowered transaction costs and settlement times, while boosting capacity by removing some information from its blockchain. A majority of the bitcoin community was in favor of SegWit2x, especially since it would make bitcoin more attractive to big businesses.

However, bitcoin still didn't receive the required 80% support needed to keep it from fracturing into two separate currencies. The remaining minority, which became bitcoin cash, chose to expand capacity within the original blockchain framework. This minority would prefer bitcoin remain a Libertarian's dream currency. It's really as simple as this: Big business currently favors Ethereum's underlying blockchain more than bitcoin's, and that's likely where the long-term value of these cryptocurrencies lies.

Before you get too excited, remember this

However, this writer is still not very excited about the long-term prospects of cryptocurrencies, in general. To begin with, there's absolutely no way of knowing how much blockchain technology will be worth a year, three years, or 10 years from now. Though businesses are testing out the technology, there isn't a large-scale use of blockchain ongoing at the moment outside of digital currencies. Therefore, any valuation of cryptocurrencies based on their underlying blockchain is nothing more than a roll-the-dice guess at the moment.

We also can't overlook the terrifying role that retail investor emotions have played in bitcoin, Ethereum, and other cryptocurrencies. Without the stabilizing force that is Wall Street, emotions have the potential to whipsaw these currencies in the short term, possibly leading to quick and hefty losses for those who aren't prepared, or don't understand how digital currencies work. Building on that last point, the lack of a central trading exchange is another potential issue. While decentralization is critical to the success of cryptocurrencies so as to reduce the likelihood of a cyberattack being successful, it also makes it difficult to legitimize cryptocurrencies. And having around a dozen exchanges can increase price volatility.

Even regulating bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies could be worrisome. While regulation would, in one sense, signify the acceptance of digital currencies as legal tender, some countries, like China, could choose to crack down on digital currencies altogether. China recently barred initial coin offerings and announced that it'll soon be shutting down domestic bitcoin and cryptocurrency exchanges. Long story short, while Ethereum looks the best positioned to succeed over the long run, there's no guarantee that it, or bitcoin, will be around in a few years' time. My suggestion remains that investors steer clear of digital currencies until we have a better understanding of how they'll be regulated, and what their underlying technology is really worth.

Say Goodbye to the Old iPhone: This Could Be 40X Better

iPhone mania is back, and there's potentially billions up for grabs. But if you think Apple is the best way to play the pending iPhone tsunami, think again. One tiny company holds the patents to an invaluable, tiny component inside Apple's newest iPhone — and Apple has to pay up every time it puts this technology in its phones. Don't wait until the name of this company is on everyone's lips.

This Stock Could Be Like Buying Amazon in 1997

 

Imagine if you had bought Amazon in 1997… a $5,000 investment then would be worth almost $1 million today. You can't go back and buy Amazon 20 years ago… but we've uncovered what our analysts think is the next-best thing: A special stock with mind-boggling growth potential. With hundreds of thousands of business customers already signed up, this stock has been described as "strikingly similar to an early Amazon.com."

Chuck Reynolds


Marketing Dept
Contributor
Please click either Link to Learn more about -Bitcoin.
Interested or have Questions. Call me 559-474-4614

 

Building Blockchains – Ripe Model for Principal- Agent Problem

Building Blockchains
– Ripe Model for Principal-
Agent Problem

 

Management theory, in broad terms, deals with the relationship

between managers and business entities. Inherent in this relationship is the principal-agent problem. This problem arises because the interests of a manager (agent) can — and often do — diverge from the interests of the owners of the business (principal) that he or she is managing.

Classic management incentivization: the carrot and the stick

Business organizations mitigate the principal-agent problem by use of incentive games that better align manager and business owner interests.

Example 1 (Reward-Based Game):

A manager is incentivized to generate revenues for a business because this is a performance metric that will influence his or her compensation. Revenues also benefit the business and its owners by increasing a company’s equity value (benefiting shareholders), enabling the company to pay down debt (benefiting creditors), allowing employees to be paid on time, etc.

Example 2 (Deterrent-Based Game):

A manager is deterred from acting in a manner that incurs excessive risk and liability for the business owners. One way this is achieved is through legal mechanisms such as vicarious liability or ‘piercing the corporate veil.’ The former may allow a manager to be held directly liable for the injury, or illegal conduct, of his or her employee; the latter may allow a manager to be held personally and solely liable in the context of fraud, etc.

I would hazard that the modern ‘business organization stack’ is built upon hundreds of different reward and deterrent incentive games, each playing a part in collectively establishing a Nash equilibrium between the ‘players’ within a business (i.e., managers and owners). These games are prevalent at all layers of the stack — e.g., compensation structures, human resources policies, governance policies, laws and regulations, etc. — and each game provides ‘checks and balances’ to the principal-agent problem that are fundamental to the viability of the organization.

Enter the ‘Cryptoeconomic Business Model’

With the advent of Blockchain-based assets — and the exponential influx of capital into the Blockchain industry over the past few years — we have witnessed the birth of a novel business model. This model enables companies to make money in new ways through the creation of open-source protocols and code (an invaluable service for which we once relied upon the altruism, rather than profit motive, of developers to provide).

I refer to this as the cryptoeconomic business model. This can be defined as any business model predicated on making profit by building a cryptoeconomic system, i.e., a peer-to-peer cryptographic network which functions on providing incentive payments to (assumed) adversarial nodes. Virtually all public/permissionless Blockchains today are ‘cryptoeconomic systems’ by this definition.

The cryptoeconomic business model upsets the classic principal-agent equilibrium that is often achieved by using reward and deterrent incentive games. This is done by introducing an entirely new class of stakeholder into the ecosystem — the Keepers of a Blockchain network (e.g. tokenholders and other participants who provide a form of ‘paid labor’ into the network, such as validators, miners, etc.)

If the traditional business has two classes of players (managers and owners), the cryptoeconomic business has three (managers, owners and Keepers). These new entrants complicate the game theory model because, now, instead of the acting only on behalf of owners, there are two sets of stakeholders (owners and Keepers) whose interests depend on the efforts of a manager. What happens when the interests of these different sets of stakeholders diverge? In whose interests would (or should) an agent be motivated to act?

Token offering events & the risk of divergence/dilution

Value creation in a traditional business model is different than value creation in a cryptoeconomic business model. In a traditional business, the final milestone of success is achieving profitability. Managers are incentivized to achieve profitability, and then to perpetually increase profitability, because the fruits of this labor accrue 100 percent to the business entity benefiting both owners and managers. Simple enough. This is not exactly the case for a cryptoeconomic business model. Early in the cryptoeconomic business life cycle, each milestone benefits managers and owners collectively — but upon a company’s token offering event milestone (note: because the term ‘ICO’ is a faux pas) there is a fundamental shift.

Value creation no longer accrues to the business entity, but directly to the product/output of that business (i.e., the cryptoeconomic system)

In a cryptoeconomic business model, the final milestone is not profitability per se, but in the value of the Blockchain network/token, which recent scholarship suggests may be measured as a token’s current utility value (“CUV”) and discounted expected utility value (“DEUV”). CUV/DEUV come into play immediately following the token offering event milestone, concurrently with the introduction of Keepers into the stakeholder set.

So how does this impact our thinking on managerial incentives?

The immediate observation is that managers and owners will only benefit from working to increase a network’s value to the extent that they retain some amount of that network’s native tokens. In practice this amount might be in the ~20–50 percent range for the business entity, which is sizable, but significantly less than the 100 percent value retention model of a traditional business.

In theory, managers have ‘skin in the game’ by virtue of these token holdings and should be motivated to drive growth in the token’s CUV/DEUV with the expectation of selling those retained tokens for a profit at some later date. This outcome would be ideal as it implies an alignment between manager-owner-Keeper interests. But the problem is that the dilution from 100% value retention (in a traditional business model) to ~20–50 percent value retention (in a cryptoeconomic business model) may also dilute a manager’s motivation to create long-term value for the network. Without sufficient reward/deterrent games in place, managers are prone to instances of moral hazard and myopic thinking.

It is plausible, for instance, that this may result in some degree of friction between the profit motive of managers, which incentivizes a manager to retain a significant portion of the tokens for the core business and the interests of the other Keepers/tokenholders who would benefit from those tokens being distributed more broadly thus creating network effects that could increase the CUV/DEUV of the token. This would be an example of misalignment between manager-owner-Keeper interests.

Other challenges in managerial motivation post-genesis block

Another challenge is due to the fact that revenue models (i.e. ‘rent-seeking’) may not be viable in cryptoeconomic systems. If a manager were to extract profit/revenue from a network by coding a centralized fee* into a protocol or dApp (i.e. any type of transaction fee that remits value back to the business), a likely outcome is that the protocol or dApp would either: (i) fail to gain adoption, or (ii) be hard forked by users (or duplicated by a competitor) to remove the fee from its code base thus making the network more cost-efficient.

*Note:

To clarify my point on centralized fees, certain platforms use sustainable fee models as a feature of the platform’s cryptoeconomic design (e.g,. Factom and Counter-Party, wherein a portion of fees are burned to increase the scarcity of the token). Also, as the use cases for dApps/protocols continue to proliferate, centralized fees may prove to be an accepted business model for certain applications of Blockchain technology.

Here are a few of the other ramifications of this challenge:

Profiting upfront; creating value later:

The creators of cryptoeconomic networks (currently) realize value for the business entity primarily via two streams: (i) the proceeds of token offering events, and (ii) the retention of some amount of the offered tokens. Both of these milestones occur relatively early in the life cycle of a business. Given that the majority of a manager’s compensation/profit is front-loaded, experience has shown that some managers will opt to simply complete a token offering event before ‘jumping ship’ to the next project, rather than working to generate value for their current project.

CUV/DEUV is a bad indicator of managerial competence:

We may not yet have the best tools to evaluate managerial performance in cryptoeconomic business models. CUV/DEUV are inherently different metrics than earnings per share, EBITDA, return on equity, etc. (the latter are some of the tools used to evaluate CEO performance in a traditional business). CUV/DEUV is driven by supply and demand; more fitting for valuing a commodity than equity. To evaluate a manager’s performance on the CUV/DEUV of a token is akin to evaluating a gold company CEO’s performance on the price of gold.

The lack of legal mechanisms to protect Keepers/token-holders:

There exists an elaborate body of corporate, securities and employment law designed to address the principal-agent problem between participants in traditional business structures (e.g., vicarious liability, ‘piercing the corporate veil,’ fiduciary duties owed by directors to shareholders, etc.) These protections do not (yet) exist for the Keepers/token-holders of cryptoeconomic systems. Granted, there is free market mechanism in play by virtue of the Keepers’ ability to hard fork a protocol in retaliation to mismanagement, but this overhaul should only be used as a last resort.

Singular token offering events: 

For traditional start-ups, the process of raising capital occurs in tranches (i.e. Seed, Series A, Series B, etc.) and each tranche is largely tied to a manager’s ability to demonstrate progress towards profitability since the previous tranche. Token offerings — on the other hand — are mostly structured as singular events. This structure alleviates the much needed external pressure on managers to deliver on building their products on time and on budget. It also fails to backstop losses for investors in the event that a manager fails to deliver.

These are just a few examples of how the principal-agent problem can manifest itself in the context of new, cryptoeconomic business models— each of which will eventually be solved by new incentive games designed for the tripartite (i.e., manager-owner-Keeper) environment.I suspect that the study of management theory in the context of cryptoeconomic business models will continue to be an evolving field — and a very relevant one at that.

Chuck Reynolds


Marketing Dept
Contributor
Please click either Link to Learn more about -Bitcoin.
Interested or have Questions. Call me 559-474-4614

Criticizing Bitcoin Could Backfire

Criticizing Bitcoin Could Backfire

 

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon is facing market abuse reports

from algorithmic liquidity provider Blockswater, according to the UK’s biggest financial news publication CityAM. Earlier this month, at a banking conference hosted by Barclays, Dimon offered baseless condemnation on Bitcoin, claiming that the decentralized cryptocurrency is a fraud and that the government will soon close down the network of Bitcoin. Almost immediately after providing a non-factual and inaccurate assessment of Bitcoin, Dimon was heavily criticized by prominent venture capital investor and the owner of the Golden State Warriors, Chamath Palihapitiya. At the conference, in response to Dimon’s comments, Palihapitiya explained that governments are limited in what they can restrict and regulate within the global Bitcoin industry and market. He emphasized that government agencies and financial regulators can control trading activities around Bitcoin but cannot manipulate or censor the peer-to-peer protocol itself. To the Dimon’s labeling Bitcoin as fraud,

Palihapitiya answered:

“Absolutely not. It cannot be a fraud. What countries can constrain today is how it is effectively traded, but it cannot be controlled. It is a fundamentally distributed system that exists peer to peer. And so to the extent that you can basically eliminate the will and the actions of every single person in the world, you can eliminate it. But in the absence of that, the genie is fundamentally out of the bottle.”

Subsequent to the release of Dimon’s condemnation on Bitcoin, the price of the digital currency plunged from over $4,400 to $3,900. Many analysts have clarified that the price drop of Bitcoin most likely was not impacted by Dimon’s comments but rather by the Chinese government’s imposition of a nationwide ban on Bitcoin exchanges. Still, Blockswater pursued a market abuse report against Dimon for his statement that was evidently incorrect and because of the involvement of JPMorgan Securities Ltd. in various Bitcoin investments.

On Sep. 15, trusted sources including Bitcoin developer Andrew DeSantis and respected Bitcoin trader IamNomad published screenshots of four separate purchases of Bitcoin XBT shares by the bank accounts of JPMorgan Securities. Analysts as Tone Vays supposed they are custodian accounts that purchased the shares of XBT Provider, a Nordic Nasdaq-based Bitcoin exchange-traded note (ETN) on behalf of clients. It is highly unlikely that JPMorgan Securities as a company made the decision to invest in Bitcoin XBT. Instead, the clients of JPMorgan likely requested bank transfers to XBT Provider in Sweden in order to invest in Bitcoin through regulated channels.

Florian Schweitzer, managing partner at Blockswater said:

"Jamie Dimon's public assertions did not only affect the reputation of Bitcoin, they harmed the interests of some of his own clients and many young businesses that are working hard to create a better financial system.”

The complaint of Blockswater also noted that Dimon purposely released non-factual information in regards to the structure and legitimacy of Bitcoin with the intent of negatively impacting its price and value.

Chuck Reynolds


Marketing Dept
Contributor
Please click either Link to Learn more about -Bitcoin.
Interested or have Questions. Call me 559-474-4614

 

Is Blockchain Technology Really the Answer to Decentralized Storage?

Is Blockchain Technology Really the Answer to Decentralized Storage?

 

The Blockchain has become much more than a simple piece of technology.

It has become a symbol for freedom, transparency and fairness. With this being said, it’s no wonder we see projects leveraging Blockchain tech as a “one-size-fits-all” tool to solve all sorts of problems, many of which could not be further from the original purpose of the Blockchain. Nowadays, the words “Blockchain technology” are thrown around alot and sometimes the use of the technology itself is unnecessary. Tim Swanson, Director of Market Research at R3CEV has even coined the term "chain washing" to describe companies/startups that are using or trying to use Blockchain technology in certain areas when in fact, they could be using more advanced technology for the purpose at hand.

This becomes especially evident when it comes to file and data storage. Although the Bitcoin Blockchain is basically a decentralized database for transactions, accounts and balances, keeping that information on a decentralized ledger is already proving to be a challenge due to capacity issues. Nevertheless, several projects and companies insist on looking at Blockchain-based solutions for storage and, while there are clear cases of misguided enthusiasm when it comes to the use of Blockchain technology, there are some projects out there that are worth taking a look at.

Blockchain Technology as an Incentive Layer

When it comes to a mutualistic relation between Decentralized Ledger Technology (DLT) and data storage, the most common use case for the Blockchain is as an incentive layer. This means that data isn’t stored on the Blockchain itself, but the network at hand is able to leverage the Blockchain as a ledger for automatic payments and/or for value exchange, enabling users to pay for storage or access to files. In this case, the advantages for using the Blockchain over any other technology are clear. These include faster settling times, lower transaction fees (which enable microtransactions), higher privacy and the ability for transparent and immutable record keeping. While the Blockchain isn’t being used for data storage, it is providing the foundation on which the decentralized network is built, allowing it to run with no central authority whatsoever.

There are several projects leveraging the Blockchain in such a way. Storj, one of the first and most successful decentralized storage networks on the cryptosphere, comes to mind. The project started out using a Bitcoin-based asset but later moved to an ERC20 token on the  Ethereum Blockchain. This token, the Storj Coin (SCJX), is used by clients to pay for storage and acts as an incentive for nodes that keep part of the client’s files. These files have been previously shredded, encrypted, and distributed to multiple nodes in order to ensure their safety and availability.

Another popular example is Filecoin, a project developed by Protocol Labs, the creators of the InterPlanetary File System (IPFS). In case you aren’t familiar with IPFS, it is an alternative p2p hypermedia protocol that allows files to be stored in a permanent and decentralized fashion. This provides historic versioning for files, removes duplicates and even allows users to save on bandwidth since files are downloaded from multiple computers and not from a single server.

While IPFS provides a basis for the storage of files, Protocol Labs took this one step further with the development of Filecoin which, according to the whitepaper, “works as an incentive layer on top of IPFS.” The system is different from the one used by Storj on many levels. In Filecoin, miners are paid to store and retrieve files, while also receiving mining rewards from their “useful Proof of Work." There is also no set price for file storage. Instead, users and miners place buy and sell orders in a decentralized storage exchange, making Filecoin a competitive marketplace in which prices can adapt to outside conditions.

While Filecoin and Storj focus on providing affordable cloud storage services, a project named Decent is currently working on a decentralized content sharing platform which allows users to upload and monetize/share their work (videos, music, ebooks, etc) without the need to rely on a centralized third party. Users can access content in a much more affordable way by skipping these intermediaries while the nodes that host the content are rewarded with fees. Much like Storj, the files stored by the nodes on the Decent network are shredded and encrypted.

Blockchain for storage? Is it possible?

Storing data on a Blockchain like Bitcoin would be doable, in theory. However, Bitcoin’s current blocksize limit only allows for 1MB of data to be stored every 10 minutes. Even if you remove that limit, nodes will eventually stop being able to maintain a copy of the Blockchain due to its size, resulting in a centralized and easily-disruptable network. Of course, the scalability problem hasn’t deterred developers from trying to use the Blockchain as a storage solution and a project called Archain may just have found a solution. Archain is a cryptocurrency project that wants to address online censorship by creating a decentralized archive for the internet. To do so, Archain will leverage a new Blockchain-derivative data structure, the "blockweave" which according to the whitepaper, allows the network scale to an “arbitrary size."

Once a user submits a page for archiving on the Archain system, it is stored on the blockweave with the fees paid by the user being allocated to the miner that finds the block at hand. Since the  Archain requires miners to store both the current block and a previous block that has been randomly picked from the blockweave, miners have an incentive to store as much as the data as they can without being forced to store the entire blockweave. As such, Archain is able to ensure that content requested by users is always available without the need for it to be stored by every single node on the network. Archain is also able to address download speeds by incentivising users to propagate poorly-mirrored blocks.

Private Blockchains?

You cannot talk about chain washing for too long without talking about private Blockchains. The concept of a private Blockchain is, to a degree, paradoxical as there is really no use for a Blockchain if the network is closed. To put it simply: If a Blockchain network is not immutable, open or transparent, then a regular database will usually be far more efficient than a Blockchain. Yet there is a little known project leveraging a private Blockchain in combination with the public Waves Blockchain to provide clients with the “best of two worlds." We are talking about Sigwo Technologies LLC, a company that focuses on providing dApps and consulting services for legacy businesses that want to integrate Blockchain technology for data storage and disaster recovery.

Although Sigwo Technologies LLC provides a wide range of services, its use of the Jupiter Blockchain, the Mercury token and the Waves Platform caught my attention. Jupiter is a private Blockchain built specifically for encrypted information storage. Different networks are created for different companies, allowing authorized nodes to join in and download the data on the chain. So far, Jupiter is not much different from any other private Blockchain. What makes it stand out is how Jupiter is able to ensure transparency and immutability despite being a private Blockchain.

Once data is stored on Jupiter, the block hashes from the private Blockchain are stored permanently on the Waves Blockchain. This is done by adding the block hash to a Waves transaction. Since Waves transaction can be paid for with a custom token, the Mercury token is used which makes the process affordable.  Since block hashes are stored on the Waves Blockchain, any change made to the private Blockchain will be publically detected. This happens because the hash from a certain block will always vary according to the information contained in the block. What we’re left with is a Blockchain in which large amounts of data can be stored by specialized nodes (unlike public Blockchains) while remaining publicly verifiable.

Conclusion

As we have seen, there are no shortage of projects that are using Blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies to make decentralized storage possible. However, it is also worth noting that DLT is still in its early stages and it is possible that other, more advanced technologies can replace it with respect to specific use cases. In other words, Blockchain may not be the answer for everything.

Chuck Reynolds


Marketing Dept
Contributor
Please click either Link to Learn more about -Bitcoin.
Interested or have Questions. Call me 559-474-4614