Cryptocurrency and it can be trading in binary options trading is not superior for you so keep absen
Why use Bitcoin when you have Paypal or Square? Consumer protections, comfort, more businesses accept it, and your friends actually know what it is. Cryptocurrencies suffer due to poor user interfaces, a lack of public understanding, few businesses accepting them and applications that look like they came straight out of the s.
Until cryptocurrencies become comparable to their relevant centralized competitor to the laymen person, they will always be stuck in niche use cases - period. Some people speculate Raiblocks will become the next major cross-cryptocurrency pairing over Bitcoin. If speed were the concern, why isn't Ether used for more cross-currency pairing than Bitcoin?
I'll tell you why - because speed simply does not matter outside of transfers between exchanges. Once inside an exchange, all trades are settled internally. This means you could have a cryptocurrency with 10 hour blocks and it would settle as quick as an instanteneous cryptocurrency once inside an exchange.
Furthermore, for a cryptocurrency to take over Bitcoin for purchasing altcoins, it would need fiat onramps. Raiblocks isn't even on any major exchanges yet outside of Binance soon. The long and the short of it is this: Stop being distracted by what is possible and think more about simply what IS. If Apple hasn't proven to you yet that superior tech isn't what matters, then I don't know what will.
I have nothing against Raiblocks and the team itself, more the speculative frenzy surrounding it. You gained a new follower today, looking forward to going through some of your analysis, and glad to have ya on Steem. I really need to start watching more analysis videos, I've been enjoying them a lot over the holiday break: However, I don't agree with many of ways you've presented the data or the rational that this is just a pump and dump.
I figured I'd leave my thoughts as to why, since I absolutely love a good debate. First of all, the comparison to Steem and Bitshares isn't represented well. You are right in pointing out that Steem has incredibly high transaction volume at a peak of 1.
However, when you do the math on that, you'll see that 1. Steem and Bitshares are arguably close to each other in terms of transaction speed, but neither of them are anywhere close to what RaiBlocks has been proven to achieve.
There's also the issue that both Steem and Bitshares are filled with non-transfer operation types, which can fill up blocks fast and could create delays in confirmation. Why is RaiBlocks different? It's because it's not a blockchain like Bitcoin, Steem or Ethereum - it's something fundamentally different and new, a block lattice or DAG. Users submit transactions to these producers for inclusion within the next block on the blockchain. Their transaction is included if space permits , then subsequently confirmed, to prove that it's a valid transaction as it propigates through the network.
At the core, almost all adoption related issues can be attributed to this flaw within this model of the blockchain - limited space and time. It doesn't matter how great you make the Bitcoin wallet's UI, how many stores accept it, or how many people are doing transfers to one another - the blockchain itself is the source of the frustration in nearly every case.
The model these blockchains follow creates inconveniences and a dependency upon whoever or whatever is creating each block or until you move off-chain, like Lightning. Instead of a relationship between a user and block producer, in which the user submits operations to the block producers, they are one and the same. The only wait for inclusion is now based on the time it takes for your machine to create and validate that transaction and then broadcast it.
Blocks are never full and there's no fee market to compete against. Technologically, in my opinion, it's a superior way of including data within a publicly distributed and decentralized ledger.
The frenzied hype and most of the garbage you read on the internet doesn't talk about any of this because most people don't really understand what's actually happening or how it works. Most people are seeing fast transactions that don't cost them a dime, so that's what they're talking about.
Once you dig deeper into the technology you'll start to realize what's magical about it and why smarter money is betting on RaiBlocks to upset many other currencies. At least that's what I see in this current rise: Also - one last point I'd like to make regarding something you said 7: I believe the adoption of RaiBlocks has already been much more rapid than either Steem or Bitshares.
RaiBlocks at this point is at 2. Steem's been more widely used for much longer than RaiBlocks, so I'd imagine that at this point, there are more transfers on RaiBlocks per day than there are for Steem. There's no good way to look up this data at the moment so I'm speculating, but you can't rule it out and just say that these chains are more widely adopted.
To close, I have high expectations for all of the currencies you've mentioned. This is a great comment and I really appreciate you taking the time to write out a very clear description of the technology that RaiBlocks runs on. I noticed that one of Crypto Investor's points was that scalability is something that is always solved in time, and though it is somewhat true for centralized technologies, the case for Bitcoin is far from the typical, and the LN is not even close to being the decentralized scalability solution that Bitcoin has been searching for.
First of all, how does LN work? If Alice wants to send money to Bob, they have to open up a payment channel on LN, which involves both of them sending money into a special Bitcoin address, after which they can exchange bitcoin so long as the channel is open, and eventually close it in order to "commit" the transactions on the main blockchain hence the "off-chain" nature of the LN. You can link multiple channels like so: If you plan on only doing off-chain transactions, it's basically not possible, because these bitcoins must be sent on-chain in order for the channel to get set up.
Suppose we want to support , users. In this iteration of the LN, we can have a user with one payment channel to 10 other users, with no redundant connections i. However, this isn't the only setup for the network. A large number of channels in CS terminology, the branching factor means that users would have to divide up their funds over all of these channels in order to even use them. A large number of hops means that all of the users' bitcoins will be locked up routing everybody else's bitcoin.
Especially since, in a hop, there is effectively a loan going on because we use network time to eliminate risk: Alice can only send money to Bob once she is sure that Bob has paid Stacy, otherwise we'd be in trouble. In addition to this, every single hop that we make over the network must have sufficient funds in order to make this lend possible - for example, if Alice wanted to send 1 BTC to Stacy but Bob doesn't have that much, we can't use Bob for this payment channel, and have to find another one.
So you can see that, at least from this very quick explanation, the LN makes nothing better for decentralized scalability. It lends itself very well to centralization because then exchanges can act as the middlemen that ensure that enough bitcoin is in all the required payment channels so that merchants are able to use them, but I don't see any merchant ever using the LN anyways, because it has to commit some amount of Bitcoin for each channel, which is not feasible for many day-to-day businesses or even big corporations Starbucks, for example.
So my point is, if RaiBlocks has indeed "solved" the scalability problem, it will be extremely good for crypto as a whole because we can actually use the damn thing to pay for our groceries. A great writeup and you highlighted my thoughts exactly regarding LN, I couldn't have said it better myself. I deleted a couple paragraphs from my original response that actually echoed some of these exact same thoughts because I was getting too word-y: I really wish I could say the same about IOTA, but it's in a semi non-functional state and is a painful experience to use.
Thanks for sharing your opinion about Iota. The whitepaper fascinated me so much I was thinking about opening an account on some exchange to buy a little. Still might but feeling less urgency now. I personally hold IOTA and will continue to do so. But - I have a feeling it'll slide down a bit more before it jumps any higher. I'm a terrible trader though, so don't take my investment advice for more than it's worth: I, too, am a terrible trader.
I want to be a buy and hold investor but that has caused me to ride too many positions to zero or near there. So I treat every position as a trade and let the ones that work become investments. The market finally convinced me that controlling my losses was more important than maximizing my gains. That took a while because I appear to be a slow learner. This author states it, but that doesn't make it true, and his claim is unsubstantiated.
We attempted to simplify the raiblocks discussion, read our article here We enjoyed your writeup, even if we disagree a little bit. Here's more on raiblocks, we think it's pretty cool, even tho you're right that it could be a pump-and-dump, but then again, so could ANY cryptocurrency.
You hit the nail on this semi-article comment jesta. One of the things that I like about you the most man nah, I'm a straight guy bro is that you're not blinded by blockchain fanaticism towards your own house, given the fact that you are a Steem witness yourself. You actually bring in the facts into the table without hiding anything unlike others who tend to cherry pick facts just to preserve whatever vested interest they might be trying to uphold.
I come across this post--which is apparently dated almost one month ago already because I was searching for answers as to why Raiblocks has been continuously demonstrating a stellar price surge despite the whole market is down. Keywords such as Raiblocks vs anycoin has led me to this post--and I'm not even surprised why Google is presenting me this page, we all know Google is tailoring their algorithm based on browsing history. Going back, this article has actually a lots of loopholes within its arguments.
I can spot them immediately upon first reading of it--and I know it cannot hold a candle the moment you try to examine the validity of those arguments very closely. In the end, it hasn't lived up to what the tittle was supposed to be doing.
It's either the author was lacking the sufficient understanding at the time he's writing this or this article was driven by his dogmatic emotion around the possible circumstances. To be clear, I am against his opinion not because I have a considerable stake in XRB, but because I simply love to approach things objectively based on merit.
In fact I don't even own a single XRB coin, which is unforgivable since I stumbled upon this platform way back in November, last year--back then it only costs a dime. Shame on me though! There are two things that I find about this coin somehow unappealing for long term and adoption side. The total number of coin supply is relatively very low for this type of instant and fee-less protocol. It undermines the very purpose of being a utility currency for everyday use.
It should instead be at least 1 billion total supply or even more! But thankfully they've re-branded it into Nano which I have just discovered today. I find it awkward but at least it's better and it best describes what the coin is about--capable of nano transactions without breaking a sweat, without charging a penny. To end this rant, I'd like to thank you man for the in-depth insight about the Raiblocks technology and I surely will try my best to get at least a handful of Nano coins once the price corrects.
I'm thinking of dumping my AGI for this solid project. Regarding 2 - there's been a lot of talk of "moving the decimal" to address that problem.
In the current system:. On a side note, I'm wondering what is your assessment on Blockstack? How is it different from EOS or can it even be considered a full-time competitor? Their project sounds very legit and mesmerizing based on my initial impression, not to mention they have Edward Snowden on board. I haven't looked deeply into blockstack - but I do know they have some existing platforms that are pretty interesting and could be adapted to their own blockchain.
I don't think it's as robust of a solution as something like EOS, but more focused sort of like Steem. Again, I've probably spent less than an hour reading about them, so I could be wrong ;.
I think you're missing the point - as the video explains there is little practical value at the current time in a feature that increases transaction limits regardless of how clever it might be at a technical level. If it doesn't provide a market advantage that can entrench it for the long haul it's nothing but a fanciful distraction until the next contender comes along incorporating the very same ideas but with more whistles. There's an alt-coin singularity event on the horizon - maybe years out - where big problems will have been solved and all of the best-of-breed approaches will have amalgamated into the surviving protocols just as has happened with every single software platform in history, laying waste to the competition.
My bet is with cryptovestor on this one - for better or for worse it will be successive versions of ethereum and bitcoin that are left standing, the rest is just a game of musical chairs. I realize this was one of the points that the video made, and while I don't agree with it, I choose not to focus on that singular point. My takeaway from the video was primarily that adoption is more important than scalability - however my take is that they are directly related to one another. You can't drive adoption without scalability and in reality, most startups and even blockchains will be failures if they can't scale to meet demand.
If you don't believe high throughput is a market advantage, then what is? No advantage I can possibly come up with would be effective without the underlying capacity to support it. These were all massive in their day and then were crushed because something better came along. They didn't keep up with the rate of innovation and suffered from their own complacency. You're absolutely right that consolidation will occur, but it's not always the incumbent that comes out on top.
If the history of software shows us anything - it's that disruption is king and the product "that just works" is going to be the one that wins over consumers. This is fundamentally where you and I differ, and only time will tell which one of us is right. My stance right now is that Bitcoin is the AOL of blockchains. It's about to get disrupted, maybe not by RaiBlocks specifically, but by a new generation of software that fundamentally alters how it works.
Bitcoin is too complacent and lacks any innovation over the past 5 years to indicate otherwise. How long do you think it will be until the raiblocks transaction count consistently exceeds that even of say, bitcoin?
In the s DOS was not displaced by the many feature-rich operating systems that could address more then K of memory. Clearly supporting more memory was a mandatory feature by the early 90s, but it had no relevance early on - and by the time it did Microsoft had cobbled together a technically inferior, but working solution.
I would argue it isn't so much being first, as being the first to entrench itself i. The counter examples you provide are situations where VERY compelling but also urgently demanded features were able to tip the balance. Don't get me wrong, there are some killer features that are desperately needed today that could displace the incumbents - I just don't see raiblocks having any of them.
For example, and as the OP contends, a crypto solution that "just works" for grandma and grandpa could become the killer app. If anything bitcoin currently enjoys the most user-friendly position because of its wide-scale support, and I don't see that changing any time soon. I too have a deep technical understanding of the subject matter, but I have come to appreciate how history is littered with failed projects that had the potential to be disruptive but whose technically-minded communities became blinded to the pragmatic issues that eventually decided the course of the market.
It's hard to draw hard parallels since the discord within the Bitcoin community is probably its greatest threat. I do like your comparison however, and note that AOL dominated the space for 25 years until it's eventual decline.
Even in crypto-years we're not there yet with Bitcoin. Bitcoin can do Coca-Cola and regain dominance but it is a good idea to hodl new tech proved coins. The market is carzy right now idk what going to happen next: One thing to keep in mind is that you can't just always "incorporate" a feature from one blockchain to another, since there are incompatibilities that arise from the fact that blockchains have an immutable history.
I can go as deep as it get, I just can't read code. I wish I had a list of bookmarks so I could just drop a link or two, but I don't have anything immediately on hand.
DAGs which both IOTA and RaiBlocks use jump to a 2 or 3-dimensional model, where instead of a set progression, the ledger itself expands infinitively in all directions. I agree with most here, but I feel the urge to educate you a little bit. For IOTA the tangle still has to be saved somewhere.
The founders say, it should be able to store data on the tangle. So you need access to the whole history. But if there is no mining and no fees, who is going to download and store the whole tangle?
If transactions are free, this means: The tangle will grow exponentially with free transactions. That's a huge conceptional mistake, no one seems to care about. Why would anyone download and save the tangle, if there is no incentive?
IOTA has so called perma nodes and even has to use a coordinator node to handle the technical problems, which come with this promises. Both these solutions are the highest form of centralization. You have to understand that whenever someone tells you about free transactions and super fast and high scaling, the trade offs are most like found in censorship resistance and decentralization. If you just buy on their promises, you will get burned. You think they are revolutionary, because they use cool buzzwords, but you only know very little about the technology and the related problems.
Moreover, Ethereum can reach thousands of transactions per second in small private networks. This has nothing to do with the real world. Why do people run Steem seed, bitcoin or ethereum nodes? What about seeding torrents? There's no incentive to any of these either, yet people do it. The reason people run these network nodes is because they want a reliable on-ramp that they control to access the blockchain, which is the same reason you'd run a IOTA or RaiBlocks node.
Every business or advanced user that utilizes these networks ends up running a node, which decentralizes it to some extent. I can't defend IOTA's coordinator, as it's one of the biggest problems with their technology as I see it. The only reason I mentioned IOTA a few times is because it uses the same technology principals as RaiBlocks, albeit in a slightly different way.
If they don't, it's a huge problem. I hope you're not addressing me directly, because I know plenty about the technology behind these products, both in their advantages and disadvantages. I do my research and surround myself with others that do the same. I don't buy into marketing hype. Edit - Also I just noticed you're a brand new user, welcome to Steem! Bitcoin and ethereum network is run by miners, which will earn money for handling transactions and downloading the whole blockchain.
If you have a Terabyte Tangle, do you think people will download it just for good will? You mentioned seeding torrents is done without incentive. It is one of the biggest problems of torrents. It is exactly the problem I am describing.
Blockchain should be persistent. To reach this goal, people need an incentive to download and store the data. No fees makes no sense here. I read many arguments against it and they are all based on good will. Well, I don't want to take the bet, that some people just want to make this world a better place and will invest millions of dollars, just to keep the network alive, without gaining direct profit from it.
There's a lot of em, that's for sure. I don't believe this is true, though I'd love to see any information that says otherwise. The network itself is actually decentralized via people running full nodes. The miners are just the ones producing the blocks and earning the rewards. Then there's the case of mining pools, which arguably is one of the most prevalent forms of mining in terms of individual users. The miners who use pools don't download the blockchain either, the pool does, and they again probably run only a handful of nodes for the entire pool.
Those full nodes are not even publicly accessible to the larger network to prevent DDOS and hidden behind a stratum. Every home ETH miner you know probably uses a pool and doesn't run a full node, nor do they actually download the entire blockchain. They're taking rewards and not contributing to that P2P distribution. In the case of Steem one of the blockchains I know the most about , the witnesses here do download the full blockchain on their "mining" servers, but then they completely firewall it off from the world so that it'll never be discoverable by the rest of the network.
The P2P distribution on the Steem blockchain doesn't happen on incentivized nodes either. The ones who probably run the most full nodes on any blockchain network and thus distributing on the P2P network are likely the exchanges and service providers, since they're continually bombarding the APIs with requests to monitor transactions and submit operations at a far greater rate than any miner would.
From what I understand - those who are actually rewarded in mining make up an incredibly small portion of the people who actually download the full blockchain and then redistribute it to others across the P2P network. I think now a days it's called AppBase or something Base in almost all of the variants.
Graphene probably isn't the best term to use since they've all modified the core at this point, but it's stuck in my vocabulary: From Spain Madrid, thank you for an honest un vias expert opinion, any other currency with new tech we should know about?
Every coin actually has its own set of fools, even in Bitcoin. There are various kinds of crypto investors however, that's for sure! Interesting points, but i don't think it's fair to compare adoption rates to Steem just yet seeing that most people can't even buy the coin right now. I also don't think that transaction speed is the sole reason why people are invested in it long term, either.
I would, however, agree with you completely that hype around the thing has reached the early "euphoric" stage.. Even when Verge started selling off, it still didn't drop to even half of pre-pump levels.. POWR predictably deflated back down, however, it also didn't take long to gradually rise back up to it's all time high less than a month. Did either Verge or Power Ledger die?
Did investors forget about them quickly to move on to the next popular flavor of the week? Of course not and it won't happen with RaiBlocks even IF it "dumps" as you say. Why do you think this is? The classic pump and dumps of the old penny stock days and now crypto always have the exact same characteristics.
Very quiet flat trading chart for months with no development progress, then a sudden and sharp day pop up to get that spark going, followed by an immediate gap down to half of the initial pump, then sometimes a rapid swing in both directions once or twice to bait more newbie fomo buyers, and finally ending with either a fast or slow bleed out as volume dries up ReddCoin is a good recent example. While RaiBlocks DID rapidly grow in December, it started off very organic and if you take a closer look there wasn't that much selling pressure on the thing even as it started doubling in price before it went into the hype overdrive today.
This lack of short term dumpers to me tells me that there are more long term believers in the thing than there are quick flippers. The chart looks way more like Power Ledger an less like ReddCoin. Remember, time is accelerated in the crypto world. On the tech fundamentals and adoption: One thing I learned from the stock market world is that fundamentals aren't a bullet proof way of determining whether or not market sentiment will drop on a stock or that one company will win over another.
RaiBlocks might not be solving an immediate demand right now in the crypto space this is to address your comment about RaiBlocks not doing anything that is in current demand at the moment but people are invested because they believe that the value of what RaiBlocks attempts to solve will be more relevant eventually..
Everything comes down to your time frame on when you are expecting a ROI. People are invested in Tesla and Amazon even though they are still not profitable companies at the moment and are currently trading at high multiples of their forward earnings.
It may not seem rational, but this doesn't really matter if enough people believe that they WILL be profitable in the long term. There is what many will claim should be the "true value" and then their is perceived value. The second matters way more. Remember, VHS won the battle against Betamax. At the end of the day, the old Maynard quote still applies, "The market can remain 'irrational' for longer than you can remain solvent. The idiot OP didn't even understand why this coin was flat for so long.
I'm not going to do his homework for him, because I let idiots be idiots, however the price rise correlated in time with an event in the lifecycle of XRB. I respect Crypto Investor and watch his content a lot even though he's been wrong lately on some predictions.
BTC dominance increasing, for example , but his biggest blindspot is that he thinks too much like a trader and not like an investor, which is ironic given the name of his channel. Specifically, he only thinks in the short-term. You can clearly see this when he claims that RaiBlocks does not solve "the immediate need in the crypto space" at the moment.
Adoption, interface, ease of use, etc. It is commonly known that in the investment world, the BIG money does not chase these short term gains. It goes for the unique and interesting projects, regardless of their immediate applications. I'm talking about the billion dollar investors, not the million dollar ones.
These types of investors ALWAYS try to get in early on something that will give them x, x gains in a few years when demand for what they are invested in becomes more relevant. They look at big picture potential here. I work in the tech field and have personally met at least 2 billionaires in my lifetime. When you talk to these people about investment and the types of things that they are interested in, they always gravitate towards those types of projects that break new ground.
Stuff that nobody else is doing in that space. My father studied Quantum mechanics in the 60s, had a PhD in the topic and taught at Virginia Tech for a number of years afterwards. At the time, everyone told him that what he was investing his time in was a waste because it did not address an immediate problem, nor did it have any practical implementation at the time. It was purely theoretical. Today, you've got the top tech firms paying millions for the brightest minds in that very field, now that quantum computing is a reality.
This is why people are interested in RaiBlocks, in my opinion. It's laying down a foundation for the future. You are investing in the people behind it. It's obvious that the RaiBlocks team is very passionate and forward-thinking.. Regardless of whether or not this is currently relevant or that it is something in high demand today, this is always where big investment opportunity lays.
First of all, though, I didn't mean to nullify your rewards. That was an accident. I didn't realize I packed that much of a punch. But this accident is going to underscore the prelude to my critique. I didn't even know it had this valuation until I looked tonight.
The steem power of my accounts amounts to a clerical error on my part when I powered down "all" my steem last year, in an effort to dump steem and move from this platform. What was left was the steem power in this account and a bunch of others that were too small to trouble with. So I didn't bother powering all this down and am letting it sit, for no other reason than I have more important things to do.
I'm bragging because I am a badass trader and know what I am doing. Now, what does this have to do with the point I will make here? It means that if you want to compare your "cryptovesting" to mine, I will wipe the floor with you. I am a badass. Ask anyone who is in my trading groups. And ask them how long ago I was hyping raiblocks to them, and what price it was. Now, the reason I down voted you to "oblivion" is that your silly post about raiblocks is completely misinformed.
You don't know what you are talking about. First, you have the ignorance to claim that steem is a potential solution to the scaling problem. The only way steem is a solution to anything is to remove the constant sell pressure caused by the reward pool. The pool is poorly conceived, and its flaws have never been addressed, and never will be. With steem's economic problems, it will never be a solution to the scaling problem or anything else. Second, you claim that scaling isn't even important.
It is ALL about scaling. For crypto to be relevant, it has to provide a global payment solution to compete with the centralized services that you claim are superior. They are not superior, by the way. They suck because they revolve around an entrenched system of exploitation.
They stem from inflationary monetary policies that funnel wealth to the already powerful. Every centralized exchange and bank is an agent of a centralized government, and these governments exist to transfer the fruits of economic productivity from the populace to those who control the money supply. Bitcoin can't scale in its present implementation. Ethereum can't scale either.
It can't even keep up with cryptokitties. Third, and worst, your post is cynical bullshit. Any idiot can be cynical and disparage a cryptocurrency platform like raiblocks or any other coin. The problem I have with this cynicism is that you have absolutely no balls. You are a chicken shit negative ninny, and your argumentative strategy reduces to unfounded name calling "pump and dump". This is why you deserve a huge downvote.
And that's what I did, partly by accident. Right now this post is not visible due to your downvote. So you are basically silencing opinions. You disagree with him. I don't want to persuade you. But his opinion IS valuable to a lot of people, including me. I think it is very important that we have a whole spectrum of opinions on this platform - and minority opinions should be protected.
If we start going around and flagging controversial content, it will disincentivize posting such content. In my opinion you abused the flagging system. Check this post on flagging etiquette https: Increased adoption, let alone mass adoption is grinding things to a halt. There's no use for bitcoin or ether in the retail sector in their current form, scalability and a currencies public reputation is clearly whats preventing any sort of adoption right now.
I'm not here trying to claim I will be buying beer with XRB in a few years from now but this is a step in the right direction to address the issues that prevent most cryptos from being used as an actual payment method. You don't understand money.
You think money is the ability to pay your cable bill with a credit card. You're lack of understanding of money probably means that paying bills will always be a struggle for you. But take it from me that scaling is important. The market, which represents collective wisdom far greater than yours, values it tremendously. I'd say that once you have wealth, you will understand what the true issues with money are.
But I am confident that will never happen. Replies will be delayed longer than usual on this maybe even til I finish point 2 in this list because there was a ton, and I mean a ton, of feedback to this video and description that has made me realize how careful I need to be on delivery.
I would like to craft a more careful response as the reason this video ever went wrong is because it wasn't carefully crafted even though most of what I have written here in the description more accurately reflects what I think. I will likely do a follow-up video because I need to do damage control anyway. I know some of you will tell me I don't owe anyone an apology, and I agree - I won't be giving one.
However, I seemed to have split most people right down the middle support me or completely against me. This is not the aim of my content - I prefer having people who are more in the middle, like jesta's comment here. For those of you invested in Raiblocks, understand that my comments are aimed more generally at the sheeplike behavior we are seeing with it recently more than those of you who genuinely are interested in it over other solutions.
I don't think full-on "currency" cryptos are well positioned in this market so yes, that does include MANY cryptocurrencies other than Raiblocks , but I understand the appeal especially if you invested early and believe in it.
Note that my criticisms are based on those two factors the hype and use case. I'm not vested in Raiblocks People need to chill. An opinion doesn't leave bruises.
Just keep doing you. Great job and your opinion is very much appreciated. You're a great speculator and that's what I follow your channel for but there are a couple points that should be elaborated upon. From what I understand that the lightning network is really just a bandaid solution. It requires prepayment of funds that are intended to be spent with a single merchant and it also requires two transactions, one to initiate, and one to finalize and broadcast the transaction.
Only the prepaid funds are available for instant transaction with the merchant over the lightning network. As you say, most of the transactions involving bitcoin is to and from exchanges, the lightning network would be useless for this use case and will not result in much improvement for scalability. There might be other changes to the bitcoin network that will improve scalability but that will probably be at least two years on.
The vast majority is just recording posts and votes from the steemit. Inflation is a good feature for currencies people actually use day-to-day but people in the crypto world tend to hate on coins that keep inflation forever as a feature. You certainly could be right about the pump and dump, it will be bloody if true.
I also agree that adoption is the biggest problem and I doubt any crypto currency in existence now will ever be widely adopted as a global currency. A good currency needs three things, stable value, near instant transactions, and near zero fees, not one crypto can check all these boxes but RaiBlocks does two better than any other for now at least.
Your last paragraph nails it. Cryptos cannot be used widely in the real business world if they are not stable. The crypto space is like the Californian Gold Rush on hyper steroids. Across the crypto board, transaction speed, particularly settlement time, is awful at the moment. Waiting well over a week for money to arrive in your account is also worrying and not acceptable from crypto exchanges.
The slow process of evolution will grind out a workable union. I agree wholeheartedly on the stability issue. Frankly I'm surprised cryptovestor didn't also pick that out as another one of the killer features that is desperately needed in the space. I enjoy your videos. I appreciate the fact that you aren't just pumping coins, you are making up your own mind and do so while trying to be honest. I don't agree with a couple of your points though.
The lightning network is not going to be an answer to Bitcoins scaling issues. I got around to looking into it a few days ago and was bitterly disappointed. Opening up channels of commerce that are only useful over repeated transactions is not worth the hassle imo.
And I'm coo-coo over cryptocurrency. I'm one of the guys that goes out of his way to transact via bitcoin. Scalability and adoption are a little bit like the chicken and the egg. You can't talk about one without the other. I believe that if Bitcoin scaled more gracefully it would be being adopted that much more quickly. Which makes RaiBlocks an interesting alternative. If it doesn't do what it claims it can do, and I clicked on this video expecting you to tell me it doesn't, then it will be worthless.
The reason why RaiBlocks was around so long unnoticed was because people assumed Bitcoin would be the answer. The optimism around the lightning network has shaken my confidence though and opened the door for alternatives. Also I feel you slipped and missed the point when you said if speed and scalability were the only issues then we have PayPal. There's a reason people are interested in conducting transactions with cryptocurrencies instead of a government issued and controlled currency.
I think the basic idea of lightning network is in and out between 2 accounts, but this can be generalized to much more, even if there is no transaction between to btc addresses.
This is just a record of some transaction that is then sent to the blockchain. It's like if you sent btc to a A address, that send the same amount to the B address that finally send your btc to the receiver address. So you just send btc to someone, he receives it instantly thanks to lightning network, and ultimatly the blockchain record it. No idea of what you see about your address on the blockchain, maybe some transaction labeled as lightning. So, yes, it is a scalability solution, this plus bigger blocks, maybe to handle all information about the transaction of a lightning network that have to be recorded will make BTC the more powerful crypto by far.
Just add smart contract and you have a beast that no one can beat If you don't believe in Lightning, you don't believe in Bitcoin. To be clear, neither do I. Bitcoin and litecoin are not stores of value, by definition. They're not digital gold and silver. A store of value must first be used as a widespread currency and build a history of purchasing power stability this is the adoption phase, not random mass purchasing by laymen who heard about it from their cousin's nephew, despite prohibitively high fees destroying any utility the network may provide , or there is no value for it to store.
If you're not on the lightning bandwagon, abandon bitcoin for something with an actual future while it's still priced in 5 figures. Usability to get adoption is a main quest for cryptos. I completely agree the rise of XRB has been insane. However I think you're glazing over the fundamental value of XRB. It is a true decentralised cryptocurrency and it's actually working. So lets take a look at some of the other cryptos that are ahead of XRB XRP - fast and low fees, centralised IOTA - fast and free transaction, centralised coordinator and not working Bitcoin - slow, high fees and centralised miners Litecoin - centralised miners.
I agree it's not going to 1 on CMC, but it deserves a spot in the top XRB is the only one that really matches up to the original vision. Yes - this has already been addressed. BitGrail was running 1 node to process all the deposits and withdrawls This is another good video cryptovestor , thanks for the details and presentation of the material.
I generally agree with you. Let me explain my reasonings:. I don't see RaiBlocks as having the business and structure to support adoption. It's a small crew at this point. The technology is impressive from what I have seen. But that is just the tip of the iceberg for adoption. Datadash did a RaiBlocks video recently and pointed this out.
In 2 other coins that come to mind, Bitshares and Ark. In fact, if you listen to Ark videos, you will find out it was inspired by Bitshares. Most people may not realize that Ark transaction take on the order of 8 seconds to complete The Ark toolchain is very robust and the wallet and smartbriding to Ethereum are quite powerful. The overall utility of coin like Ark not shilling for Ark here, btw is much greater than a coin like RaiBlocks. When I look at a coin like Ark, or possibly a coin like Cardano I see a multi use case for the coin in addition to be being a fast currency.
I am closely watching Ark as they strive to make more industry relationships. Even a coin like Decred which has a governance model and an organization structure supporting it. There could be an inflection point that allows RaiBlocks to become easily adopting, and I will be investigating alone those lines. However, at this point, I don't quite see it.
I would classify my overall thoughts on RaiBlocks as "positive on the tech, negative on the adoption, neutral overall" at this point. I wouldn't say it's inferior. We are just using new technology based on old technology.
The problem with PayPal is that you have to have a bank account, wifi, your information is not encrypted, and you have to pay fees to PayPal. Crypto will find a way to change all of these things. Centralization also leads to corruption and an oligarchy. Once crytpo becomes more mainstream, plenty of the centralized businesses will go out of business. I'm relatively new to cryptocurrencies' financial aspect, but one thing I have noticed is that emotions are running extremely high.
People are thinking emotionally and not analytically. Your channel has been a great resource for a beginner like me, and breath of fresh air. NO one has use for junk that's clogged and slow. And I'm tired of being f'ing patient about it! What's the point of early adoption when only the early adopters got any practical value. Sure I love the investment gains, but that was never suppose to be the point and is unsustainable if it IS the point.
The question isn't "why Riablocks". Bitcoin and Ethereum have name recognition but can't. As someone who didn't get into this as a get-rich quick scheme, I'm freakin' pissed that the crap no longer works 'cause of all the normies!
I want my freakin' crypto back! I like your comment because it's humble and practical and your writing style is easy on the eyes and you're not trying to one up anyone. Why thank you I agree. Are those the same thing? It WAS awesome and useful and now they're all crap.. What would make people believe they're ever going to really get fixed or going to really be useful again? And if they can't be useful again, then how can you argue it's not all a ponzi scheme? I'm not being sarcastic. I like cryptocurrency because honestly I like to mine it, it's fun, I like to read the papers on the uses and think about if it is practical or not.
I look at the advisors and boards to see who the people are behind the coins and tokens. Right now it satisfies a curiosity and thirst for knowledge and understanding.
My background is in studying history, so things that impact the human condition interest me and I like to think idealistically about the future. I was checking out Overstock the other day and couldn't get shapeshift to work using ETH so I gave up on that. They need to take out the converting piece on that and just straight up take the currency. Overstock seems interested in holding cryptos so maybe they will do it.
Merchants need assurances on a few points: But dollars and banks can do this I guess if they are tired of bank fees and things. But dannnng BTC fees are super ridiculous right now. Yeah, I wasn't sure if you were serious or sarcastic, but since I was generally venting I figured I better cover my bases. I thought my use of "noobs" might have been a bit over-the-top, but I feel like everyone has gotten into this stuff SO recently they don't have the larger picture.
I got into crypto mining early cause "screw the banks" and "we can do it better. NOW, I'm pretty much losing faith in the tech.. I keep asking myself "what's the point, credit cards have encryption chips now?
I believe overstock has it's own crypto in development actually.. I've used gyft for so years, so I hope they come up with something good as well, absolutely wonderful platform. OH, well if you're a history guy, you might consider looking at the impact of "pieces of eight" as an economic unit.. I think both are a much better comparison for the potential of cryptos than tulips. I think a lot of people have been early adopters like you - me too, for me it was VR.
I'm just so over now that no amount of pumping can get me pumped anymore lol I'll check out gyft, and solidus and pieces of eight. Thanks for the inspiration!
Super interesting take on this. You obviously are a serious outlier here, but your reasoning, as usual, is sound.
With so many cryptos in the market one of the most important things people can do before investing is to read about it and understand if its something they support both morally AND investment-wise.
Many people fail to look at this, as you have highlighted in this video. I too would be interested in your thoughts around Cardano, as it is something that is receiving some good attention as well. Also curious if you think that Pump and Dumps have a place in terms of allowing people the ability to make money. Do you think it's too dangerous, poor morale or causes too much FUD in the entire crypto market?
Something you typically look to partake in or stay away from? This meteoric rise shows the state of crypto today Zero fundamentals, zero research, just people hopping on the coin that's pumping. It seems that every month there is a new "revolutionary" coin that will change the world and take over.
It doesn't matter that most projects have yet to prove their real value, people are eager to throw money as if there's no tomorrow. However, such massive gains over such a relatively short period of time is bound to create some volatility. In other words, the stock market tends to correct about once every two years, whereas bitcoin has a substantial move lower about every two to three months.
This week has seen one of the wildest snapbacks in the history of cryptocurrencies. Let's consider four likely reasons cryptocurrencies have been eviscerated this week.
Perhaps the most front-and-center headline ties to South Korea's flip-flopping regarding its stance on cryptocurrencies. It was first reported a week ago that South Korea was planning to shut down all of its domestic crypto-trading exchanges, which would, of course, be a major blow to the decentralized market. Popular virtual currencies Ripple and Ethereum generate a good chunk of their daily trading volume from South Korea.
Then, a few days later, South Korea walked back threats to ban cryptocurrency trading. As of Tuesday, Jan. No one really knows what to expect, which is why investors have headed for the exit. What is worth noting, as Forbes pointed out , is that the South Korean government's intention may not be to outright ban cryptocurrencies, so much as to ban anonymous transactions. For instance, the South Korean government is requiring bitcoin traders to use their real names to protect their citizens from fraud, theft, and deception.
Though this cuts at the very heart of the cryptocurrency movement, it might be the only way crypto trading continues in South Korea. China, one of the fastest growing countries in the world, has also taken a dislike to bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. This past summer, China's government announced that it'd be banning initial coin offerings, which are how virtual coins go public, and would also be shutting down domestic cryptocurrency exchanges.
The country also limited bitcoin mining, which can be a very energy-intensive process. Now, according to a recent Bloomberg report, Chinese authorities have plans to block domestic access to centralized trading platforms, as well as offshore cryptocurrency trading platforms.
In short, China is aware that virtual currency trading still exists despite its best efforts to curb it domestically, and it now plans to step up enforcement by purposefully blocking access to certain sites and platforms. Bloomberg also suggests that Chinese regulators plan to target individuals and companies that provide market-making and clearing services for centralized trading. One of the primary reasons cryptocurrencies have done so well is because the crypto market isn't "fair. For the average investor on a decentralized exchange, your only real options are to buy, sell, or hang on to your investment.
Unlike traditional equity markets, there isn't access to short-selling opportunities or options allowing a pessimist to place their bet against a cryptocurrency. This tends to push crypto prices higher since few people are making money if prices are falling.