The future of the Blockchain and its potential impact on our world




<div _ngcontent-c16 = "" innerhtml = "

Pexels Pexels

(Disclaimer: The author holds investments in bitcoin and Ethereum.)

The challenge was posed.

Or so it appeared anyway.

At CoinDesk's Consensus 2018 conference this year, Jeff Lubin, founder of the company of Ethereum Consensys, has agreed to bet "any amount of bitcoins" with Jimmy Song of Blockchain Capital that within five years, the blockchain would have a number of applications working for real users.

It's probably a bet to take in. Hundreds of millions of dollars have already been invested by some of the biggest companies of the future world of the blockchain

JPMorgan has a blockchain program Barclays & # 39; Accelerator a 13-week startup program organized by one of the largest banks in the world, has provided space and funding for a number of [19659008] blockchain-ba sed Fintech enterprises [19659008]. Companies that work on blockchain-based services include IBM, which is looking to build a tracking tool for shipping companies and chain stores, Eastman Kodak, which is experimenting with the blockchain to create stock image archives and Spotify who wants to use the blockchain to manage author rights. Investors in blockchain projects include Peter Thiel, Sequoia Capital and Andreessen Horowitz, as well as Google, Goldman Sachs, Visa and Deloitte. All of these companies and experts are betting millions of dollars that a decentralized ledger can do things that other forms of technology can not do.

They will probably waste their money and their time … but not everything.

Critics like Song tend to argue that much of what blockchain-based products are trying to do can be done without the use of a blockchain. A decentralized ledger might be able to & nbsp; help & nbsp; to keep track of items that flow through a shared economy like apartments, boats and bicycles, but companies like Airbnb, Uber and city bikes have done everything right with little more than apps and barcodes. Signed triple receipts are much easier to implement and meet the same security guarantees as a decentralized ledger with public-key cryptography, proof-of-work, networking, and database technology. A blockchain can replace escrow services, but would it be cheaper, safer or easier to use than a bank account and a trusted third party?

The use of blockchain can also remove the versatility that makes startups so agile. New businesses in Silicon Valley take many hours to shoot feasible minimum products before they run out of funding. They refine these products, match them to the public and show venture capitalists who are on the right track – they can actually do something that people will pay to use – to win enough money to reach the next milestone.

Companies that use an ICO to raise large amounts of funds, however, may behave more like investment banks. They start with a lot of money, they move slowly to develop their product and, if they are really decentralized, they will not be able to change it when it reaches the market. A blockchain could slow them down.

These arguments are fair, and for anyone who was old enough to have lived the first days of the dot.com bubble, it's also familiar. The end of the 90s was the period when you could launch a company that sells elephant underwear, but since you called it "Internet" someone would come up with a lot of money and the belief that you would all have they are rich.

And you would also have many people willing to tell you that they were crazy and that the whole internet business "was overrated and would soon vanish.

Clearly, this does not happen A large number of companies, companies that have never had a real product or offered an appropriate service below their URLs, they were left exposed when the financial tide broke out.But some companies survived and survivors thrived.Amazon is a multibillionaire business.This is Google, eBay and Paypal Everyone was able to create products on the web that other people wanted to use and could turn them into revenue – none of them could have existed without the web.

That's exactly what's happening now – nobody knew when Google started that would have destroyed Alta Vista and ate Yahoo's lunch No one knew that eBay would leave OnSale in the dust or that a startup called Facebook would have bbe killed Friendster. Investors certainly do not, and that's why they spent their money, hoping that some of them would stick to a business with a real product in a completely new market environment.

The blockchain is ideal for keeping track of a currency and protecting it from fraud. We do not know yet what it is useful for. Until the developers have finished their work, we will not know if it will become the technology behind a rejuvenated sharing economy or if it will only serve to enhance banking services, making economic transactions almost instantaneous.

The blockchain has already supported a new currency. Investors now bet that they can do something else, and they are putting their bets on a bunch of new technologies. Most of these new technologies will fail. But some, some, will succeed. If I were a betting man, I would put myself in bitcoin.

The Forbes Coaches Council is a community of invitations only for business leaders and career coaches.
Do I qualify?

">

(Disclaimer: the author holds investments in bitcoin and Ethereum.)

The challenge has been posed. His hands were shaken. The bet has been placed.

Or so it appeared anyway.

At this year's CoinDesk Consensus Conference 2018, Jeff Lubin, founder of the Ethereum Consensys company, has agreed to bet "any bitcoin amount" with Jimmy Song of Blockchain Capital that within five years, the blockchain would have had a number of applications working for real users.

It is probably a bet to be taken. Hundreds of millions of dollars have already been invested by some of the world's biggest companies on the future of the blockchain.

JPMorgan has a blockchain program. Barclays & # 39; Accelerator a 13-week startup program organized by one of the world's largest banks, provided space and funding for a number of companies fintech based on blockchain [19659008]. Companies that work on blockchain-based services include IBM, which is looking to build a tracking tool for shipping companies and chain stores, Eastman Kodak, which is experimenting with the blockchain to create stock image archives and Spotify who wants to use the blockchain to manage author rights. Investors in blockchain projects include Peter Thiel, Sequoia Capital and Andreessen Horowitz, as well as Google, Goldman Sachs, Visa and Deloitte. All of these companies and experts are betting millions of dollars that a decentralized ledger can do things that other forms of technology can not do.

They will probably be wasting their money and their time … but not everything.

Critics like Song tend to argue that much of what blockchain-based products are trying to do can be done without the use of a blockchain. A decentralized register might be able to help keep track of items flowing through a shared economy like apartments, boats and bicycles, but companies like Airbnb, Uber and city bike systems have done everything good with just over app and barcodes. Signed triple receipts are much easier to implement and meet the same security guarantees as a decentralized ledger with public-key cryptography, proof-of-work, networking, and database technology. A blockchain can replace escrow services, but would it be cheaper, safer or easier to use than a bank account and a trusted third party?

The use of blockchain can also remove the versatility that makes startups so agile. New businesses in Silicon Valley take many hours to shoot feasible minimum products before they run out of funding. They refine these products, match them to the public and show venture capitalists who are on the right track – they can actually do something that people will pay to use – to win enough money to reach the next milestone.

Companies that use an ICO to raise large amounts of funds, however, may behave more like investment banks. They start with a lot of money, they move slowly to develop their product and, if they are really decentralized, they will not be able to change it when it reaches the market. A blockchain could slow them down.

These arguments are fair, and for anyone who was old enough to have lived the first days of the dot.com bubble, it's also familiar. The end of the 90s was the period when you could launch a company that sells elephant underwear but, since you call it an "internet business", someone would come up with a lot of money and the belief that you you would be rich.

And you would also have many people willing to tell you that they were crazy and that the whole "internet" thing was overrated and would soon fade.

Clearly, this did not happen. A large number of companies, companies that have never had a real product or offered an adequate service under their URLs, have been left exposed when the financial tide has broken out. But some companies have survived and survivors have thrived. Amazon is a multibillion-dollar business. So they are Google, eBay and Paypal. Everyone was able to create products on the web that other people wanted to use and could turn them into revenue. None of them could have existed without the web.

This is exactly what is happening now. Nobody knew when Google started that it would destroy Alta Vista and eat Yahoo's lunch. Nobody knew that eBay would leave OnSale in the dust or that a startup called Facebook would kill Friendster. Investors certainly do not, and that's why they spent their money, hoping that some of them would stick to a business with a real product in a completely new market environment.

The blockchain is ideal for keeping track of a currency and protecting it from fraud. We do not know yet what it is useful for. Until the developers have finished their work, we will not know if it will become the technology behind a rejuvenated sharing economy or if it will only serve to enhance banking services, making economic transactions almost instantaneous.

The blockchain has already supported a new currency. Investors now bet that they can do something else, and they are putting their bets on a bunch of new technologies. Most of these new technologies will fail. But some, some, will succeed. If I were a betting man, I would put bitcoin on it.


Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *