After stating the problem...
The "Reference Implementation" • The question whether alternative software implementations for Bitcoin are desirable has been discussed for years. These implementations, or clients, are essentially computer programs that connect to, and therefore become part of, the network. The debates surrounding their role date from the early days of Bitcoin's history, back when the community mostly consisted of tinkering techies.
The first Bitcoin implementation was of course Satoshi Nakamoto's version of Bitcoin, written in the coding language C++. This client later become known as Bitcoin-Qt, and now Bitcoin Core ; it is sometimes also referred to as Bitcoin's "reference client" or the "Satoshi client." For a while, this was the only Bitcoin implementation - although over time Satoshi released updates; i.e., slightly different versions of the same client.
...it moved through a logical point/counterpoint exposition that might be a model for any discussion of strategies for clients in distributed computing: 'The First Alternatives • Criticism • Counter-criticism • Ethereum • Future Strategies'.
Another story caught my attention because it raised an issue that I wasn't aware of: 'crowdfunding platforms do not take kindly to bitcoin'. Why should this be?
The article didn't provide an answer and I had to do a little research to discover What are the obstacles for the widespread adoption of Bitcoin in crowdfunding and micro-financing? (quora.com). Of the many reasons that were proposed, most of which work against adoption of bitcoin for any purpose, the 'volatility of bitcoin' seemed to be the most important for crowdfunding. Going back to an insight I had a year ago, It's for Speculating, Not Buying Stuff (October 2015), crowdfunding is already speculative enough without adding currency risk.
In contrast to the crowdfunding chimera, another pair of stories focused on an aspect of bitcoin that is often touted as a key application: remittance markets. This might be a suitable subject for a followup post.
- There's a $500 billion remittance market, and Bitcoin startups want in on it (qz.com [Quartz])
- How Bitcoin Startups Are Disrupting the Remittance Market (tech.co)
Another story caught my eye because it used the phrase 'Yet Another', implying a tired subject. When I looked for previous instances, I kept coming back to the Santander report. Mark this as another candidate for a followup post.
Ditto for the final story.
- Bitcoin and the Brave Future of Browsers (coindesk.com)
It helps to know that 'Brave' is the name of a browser. Why is this concept important?
To start, a monthly payment content budget is configured and funded by the user, and as the user surfs across the Internet, visiting various sites, those sites are tracked on a “time spent” basis. [...] Quick back-of-the-napkin math would indicate that if 750,000 users visited CoinDesk using a Brave browser with a $5.00 monthly budget, and 6% of their browsing time was spent, on average, across all users, CoinDesk’s escrow account would be holding $213,750 at the end of the month. All of this without a single ad, without employing a single ad salesperson, sales infrastructure, any of that overhead.
The math would have been easier assuming 1,000,000 users, but it's all pie-in-the-sky anyway; a handful of comments explain why. The last paragraph of that article is also worth a further look (think 'organizational structures'):-
Disclaimer: CoinDesk is a subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which has an ownership stake in Brave.
Note to myself: If you do follow up any of these ideas, don't forget to check the forums.
No comments:
Post a Comment