My source said it "uses the same logic" which is somewhat different from your source. I wonder which it is. I would have thought bitcoin folk would not take too kindly to use of its network for other than transactions in bitcoin. (I know script can be used in this way.) Is there not an issue with scalability?
Of course does not alter my comment re its relevance to this thread.
It's all there in the article that you selectively quoted from but didn't cite -> Coindesk: '
Microsoft’s ION Digital ID Network Is Live on Bitcoin'
It's a layer 2 solution which runs on top of the bitcoin network and is secured by it - working in a similar way as lightning network. It's capable of 10,000 digital identity requests per transaction - so there's no scalability issue. The project lead has been quoted as saying that bitcoin is a very important facet of the project as no other network can match its level of security.
As I suggested previously, these features and use cases should all be considered together - rather than in isolation - in arriving at a conclusion as to what overall value bitcoin brings. Bear in mind that this is just the beginning and whilst bitcoin itself is deliberately limited from a programability perspective, there are still people building services to run on top of it.
I remember at the outset of all this BC business and the arguments for and against BC, Mr Burgess saying that at the end of the day BC was just worthless, no value, etc. Then some time later I watched as ordinary people in the street came across saying they had bought some, sold some and others were holding on to it because they totally believed it would soar. No doubt some "investors" made a few bob, some i'm sure lost and others are in there for the long run. Now, this "long run" strategy has me a bit baffled. Imagine you buy something for a few Euro and find yourself the owner of the exact same asset now worth €60,000.00 (was worth). I would love to know if there's many punters on here who actually bought a few Bitcoin for the couple of Euro and sold on for the €60k?
On average, bitcoin has appreciated at a rate of 200% pa over the course of its 12 years so it's a fair assumption to make that early adopters have done ok. WolfeTone recently sold some BTC just below $60,000.
noproblem said:
Saw a piece in yesterdays Indo suggesting similar to Me Burgess that it's a worthless bubble type "thingy".
The Indo is nothing more than a blog at this stage - not a good source of info on the subject. Someone ran a search on either the FT or WSJ recently for the term "DeFi" (abbreviated term that refers to Dencentralised Finance). I think it returned around three results. I'm not necessarily referring to bitcoin in this example but conventional/establishment finance (and the media associated with it) has no earthly idea of the disruption that's coming down the tracks.
As regards the bubble charge, its said that a bubble is a bull market that you don't have a position in. There's no doubt that there's hype, over-exuberance and latent greed. I suspect that there will once again be an 80% correction when the dust settles on this particular cycle. However, if you zoom out and look at its ongoing development over the long run, the trajectory is upwards and to the right...as per that 200% pa appreciation I mentioned above.
@WolfeTone : So your back and forth has confirmed to you that you were spot on the first time a
s per post # 172.