Though I believe that this is good news, I think it's important to note that "blockchain" and "crypto-currency" are not synonymous. Many big companies around the world are getting involved with blockchains that do not have crypto currencies associated with them. This could potentially be another case of blockchain adoption that has no impact on crypto. Just something to keep in mind
Heya! Actually, I think you are right in that the french government means blockchain, not per se bitcoin. But I think it is wrong to seperate blockchain from cryptocurrency. It's okay that the French are confused still, they will figure out that it makes no sense to have one without the other.
What most don't realize is that blockchain isn't a magical new technology.
It is very simply put a safety mechanism to prevent against 51% attacks.
51% attacks are only possible in an open network with untrusted parties (decentralized)
In order to incentive people to run the decentralized network, there is a crypto payment. 'Centralized' (trusted parties or whatever) blockchains need no monetary incentive to run a node, but then again they also do not need protection against 51% attacks.
Ergo, if you don't have an open decentralized network then you don't need a blockchain. In fact a blockchain would be the worst technology to use. It is already and has been for a long time possible to create a distributed network amongst trusted parties. Tokens, smart contracts, all possible in such an environment and have been for a long time.
The only reason to use blockchain data structure is thus to obtain decentralization. And in order to incentivize the decentralized nodes, there needs to be a cryptocurrency. Therefore once 'they' get it, they will understand that in reality the terms are more synonymous than they are not.
You are way smarter at this then I am and understand it more than I probably ever will. I see what you are saying but I'm still confused because I know there are several companies (i believe Microsoft is one of them) that are offering blockchain technology sevices to large corporations. So if I'm understanding what you are saying correctly, the blockchains that these companies are offering are centralized (without a crypto currency) which in turn makes them useless. Is that right?
Basically, yes. There is a teeny tiny but of nuance maybe but that is the gist of it.
The main reason why companies and governments are piling on blockchain is because they want the benefits, but don't understand the underlying technology. So they take out what they don't like without realizing that also takes away one of the key aspects of what makes it interesting and new.
But there are billions to be made out of this general lack of knowledge. Adding 'blockchain' to your corporation is enough to quadruple it's stock prices.
But decentralization is truly the only thing that matters in a blockchain. You can use existing tech far better for everything that doesn't need decentralization. And what needs it, you ask? Well, things that need high security. Like money or high value things. And in the case of money and high value things, if given the choice between 'completely decentralized' and 'less decentralized', to which blockchain would you trust your billions more?
In my opinion it is inevitable that the majority of wealth will flow into the most decentralized chain, because that is the most secure. Other blockchains can be used in parallel and probably will, though. you might spend and earn money through those, but inevitably once it starts piling up and you want to store it somewhere safe, then it's the decentralized secure chain that you want to store it on.
Interesting and good to know. It's still a bit over my head but I think I understand what you are saying. It makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to explain it. I appreciate that :)
You're welcome! :)
To finish up my speech, let me just add one little bit.... which is to say: no matter what your favorite coin, be sure to get plenty of btc.
Well I watched the whole video clip (with the translator and I struggling our way through) and MAN is it bullish! Of course I did keep thinking "it's a blockchain conference and he's a politician - he'll tell them what they want to hear" - which is normal for politicians, but if only half of what he says is true then that's already massive news!
Clearly he favours local development and probably private blockchains, but that won't matter in the long run. The only really successful blockchains will be public ones.
Yeah, seriously! He says like one or two things that are negative (used for illegal purposes, energy consumption) but other than that he's totally onboard. IMO he's the most influential and high placed blockchain proponent thus far. You could argue Christine Lagarde perhaps, but Le Maire has actual direct power while she has only indirect power
Lagarde is VERY much the politician when it comes to crypto (even though technically she isn't one). She blows hot and cold. At one stage I thought she was a big crypto bull too, only to read completely contradictory statements shortly thereafter. I wouldn't trust her further than what I can throw her.
Oh yes, I very much agree on Lagarde. I was just referencing that she sometimes speaks positively about blockchain now. But like others she's on the blockchain not bitcoin bandwagon.
It's okay though, one day people will figure it out. I think everybody goes through the same evolution in understanding bitcoin and crypto. They have passed stage 1 where they realized that 'Ok, maybe there is something there' and they are now at the stage where they think they are into alts.
I mean.. 99% of the blockchain projects out there are crap. And I am convinced that in many cases the founders don't know this themselves, because they don't get what the innovation and revolution is at the core. You can see this in Ethereum too. They started out very much on the 'We are better than bitcoin' train but you can tell that Vitalik is having his doubts these days, and he's in it differently than he used to be. Everybody is realizing that it's BTC that matters, and narrative is now shifting to a more 'how can we add/improve on BTC'. Even EOS founders are now saying BTC is likely to succeed and they are suggesting that EOS may be used to scale BTC.
If it took this long for all the altcoin founders to come around, imagine how far off the general public and politicians still are. They're atleast two evolutionary stages behind.
Wonderful reply Pandora, I feel like applauding! I'm busy writing an article somewhat along these lines. I'll only publish after Easter though (I've learnt that weekend posts tend to get ignored). Nice little infographic thingy - I don't completely agree with it, but the message is right. At the end of the day I hold alts to build and maximise my BTC value. Eventually I hope to convert some BTC value into fixed assets. Eventually. Maybe. Lambo. Moon.
Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by pandorasbox from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows. Please find us at the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.
If you would like to delegate to the Minnow Support Project you can do so by clicking on the following links: 50SP, 100SP, 250SP, 500SP, 1000SP, 5000SP. Be sure to leave at least 50SP undelegated on your account.
Though I believe that this is good news, I think it's important to note that "blockchain" and "crypto-currency" are not synonymous. Many big companies around the world are getting involved with blockchains that do not have crypto currencies associated with them. This could potentially be another case of blockchain adoption that has no impact on crypto. Just something to keep in mind
Posted using Partiko Android
Heya! Actually, I think you are right in that the french government means blockchain, not per se bitcoin. But I think it is wrong to seperate blockchain from cryptocurrency. It's okay that the French are confused still, they will figure out that it makes no sense to have one without the other.
What most don't realize is that blockchain isn't a magical new technology.
It is very simply put a safety mechanism to prevent against 51% attacks.
51% attacks are only possible in an open network with untrusted parties (decentralized)
In order to incentive people to run the decentralized network, there is a crypto payment. 'Centralized' (trusted parties or whatever) blockchains need no monetary incentive to run a node, but then again they also do not need protection against 51% attacks.
Ergo, if you don't have an open decentralized network then you don't need a blockchain. In fact a blockchain would be the worst technology to use. It is already and has been for a long time possible to create a distributed network amongst trusted parties. Tokens, smart contracts, all possible in such an environment and have been for a long time.
The only reason to use blockchain data structure is thus to obtain decentralization. And in order to incentivize the decentralized nodes, there needs to be a cryptocurrency. Therefore once 'they' get it, they will understand that in reality the terms are more synonymous than they are not.
You are way smarter at this then I am and understand it more than I probably ever will. I see what you are saying but I'm still confused because I know there are several companies (i believe Microsoft is one of them) that are offering blockchain technology sevices to large corporations. So if I'm understanding what you are saying correctly, the blockchains that these companies are offering are centralized (without a crypto currency) which in turn makes them useless. Is that right?
Posted using Partiko Android
Basically, yes. There is a teeny tiny but of nuance maybe but that is the gist of it.
The main reason why companies and governments are piling on blockchain is because they want the benefits, but don't understand the underlying technology. So they take out what they don't like without realizing that also takes away one of the key aspects of what makes it interesting and new.
But there are billions to be made out of this general lack of knowledge. Adding 'blockchain' to your corporation is enough to quadruple it's stock prices.
But decentralization is truly the only thing that matters in a blockchain. You can use existing tech far better for everything that doesn't need decentralization. And what needs it, you ask? Well, things that need high security. Like money or high value things. And in the case of money and high value things, if given the choice between 'completely decentralized' and 'less decentralized', to which blockchain would you trust your billions more?
In my opinion it is inevitable that the majority of wealth will flow into the most decentralized chain, because that is the most secure. Other blockchains can be used in parallel and probably will, though. you might spend and earn money through those, but inevitably once it starts piling up and you want to store it somewhere safe, then it's the decentralized secure chain that you want to store it on.
Interesting and good to know. It's still a bit over my head but I think I understand what you are saying. It makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to explain it. I appreciate that :)
Posted using Partiko Android
You're welcome! :)
To finish up my speech, let me just add one little bit.... which is to say: no matter what your favorite coin, be sure to get plenty of btc.
Probably good advice. I dont think that you can ignore bitcoin
Posted using Partiko Android
A big step in the right direction
Well I watched the whole video clip (with the translator and I struggling our way through) and MAN is it bullish! Of course I did keep thinking "it's a blockchain conference and he's a politician - he'll tell them what they want to hear" - which is normal for politicians, but if only half of what he says is true then that's already massive news!
Clearly he favours local development and probably private blockchains, but that won't matter in the long run. The only really successful blockchains will be public ones.
Yeah, seriously! He says like one or two things that are negative (used for illegal purposes, energy consumption) but other than that he's totally onboard. IMO he's the most influential and high placed blockchain proponent thus far. You could argue Christine Lagarde perhaps, but Le Maire has actual direct power while she has only indirect power
Lagarde is VERY much the politician when it comes to crypto (even though technically she isn't one). She blows hot and cold. At one stage I thought she was a big crypto bull too, only to read completely contradictory statements shortly thereafter. I wouldn't trust her further than what I can throw her.
Oh yes, I very much agree on Lagarde. I was just referencing that she sometimes speaks positively about blockchain now. But like others she's on the blockchain not bitcoin bandwagon.
It's okay though, one day people will figure it out. I think everybody goes through the same evolution in understanding bitcoin and crypto. They have passed stage 1 where they realized that 'Ok, maybe there is something there' and they are now at the stage where they think they are into alts.
I mean.. 99% of the blockchain projects out there are crap. And I am convinced that in many cases the founders don't know this themselves, because they don't get what the innovation and revolution is at the core. You can see this in Ethereum too. They started out very much on the 'We are better than bitcoin' train but you can tell that Vitalik is having his doubts these days, and he's in it differently than he used to be. Everybody is realizing that it's BTC that matters, and narrative is now shifting to a more 'how can we add/improve on BTC'. Even EOS founders are now saying BTC is likely to succeed and they are suggesting that EOS may be used to scale BTC.
If it took this long for all the altcoin founders to come around, imagine how far off the general public and politicians still are. They're atleast two evolutionary stages behind.
Wonderful reply Pandora, I feel like applauding! I'm busy writing an article somewhat along these lines. I'll only publish after Easter though (I've learnt that weekend posts tend to get ignored). Nice little infographic thingy - I don't completely agree with it, but the message is right. At the end of the day I hold alts to build and maximise my BTC value. Eventually I hope to convert some BTC value into fixed assets. Eventually. Maybe. Lambo. Moon.
Perhaps you remember these:
https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@bitbrain/analysis-of-an-analysis-the-imf-trying-to-stop-the-marshall-islands-from-adopting-cryptocurrencies
https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@bitbrain/analysis-of-an-analysis-part-2-the-why
Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by pandorasbox from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows. Please find us at the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.
If you would like to delegate to the Minnow Support Project you can do so by clicking on the following links: 50SP, 100SP, 250SP, 500SP, 1000SP, 5000SP.
Be sure to leave at least 50SP undelegated on your account.
Congratulations @pandorasbox! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPHi, I'm new here! I'm really interested in following more crypto people if you all have some suggestions...