MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Can Ethereum Restore Online Freedom and Transform the Internet?

"It will impact every aspect of our existence."

"If you think the Internet has affected your life, Ethereum will have that same pervasive influence on our communications and our entire information infrastructure," says Joseph Lubin, who's the founder of the Brooklyn-based software-production studio ConsenSys. "It will impact every aspect of our existence."

ConsenSys, which employs 68 people in nine countries, is developing applications to run on this ambitious new computing platform.

On Ethereum, the same types of services offered by companies like Facebook, Google, Ebay, and Amazon, will be provided instead by computers distributed around the globe. But how does Ethereum bring together these scattered nodes into one network? By using the groundbreaking organizational system known as a blockchain, which The Economist has aptly dubbed "the trust machine."

It's the same technology that makes possible peer-to-peer exchange of Bitcoins without a bank keeping track of who owns what. Ethereum is controlled by a different kind of blockchain that's specifically designed to keep this decentralized network in sync, forming one powerful global computer that could one day match the capabilities of a Facebook or a Google.

To find out more about how Ethereum could transform the Internet, watch the story above.

Video length: 8:10.

Written, shot, edited, and narrated by Jim Epstein.

"Over Time" by Audionautix is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Artist: http://audionautix.com/

Hollowed Day by Twin Musicom is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Artist: http://www.twinmusicom.org/

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube Channel to receive automatic notifications when new stories go live.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Swiss Servator||

    Is it available in fusion powered flying cars?

  • generalisimo14||

    Swiss, I’ve read many of your posts here but usually maintain a voyeur’s distance from conversations. However, the discussion of the blockchain/Ethereum is a subject I’ll comment on because this has real and viable potential to move us toward a more just and liberal world. Move past your sarcasm and look at the code and math, as it does not lie. This is a technology that, in my rather simple opinion, COULD (if it gains the critical mass and avoids usurpation) utterly change the current economic system, in a more free market and individualistic manner. Good news for liberty, bad news for centralized authority.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You'll find too many here are more invested in being kewl and 'whitty' than in advancing freedom.

  • Swiss Servator||

    Whatever you say, Armchair Field Marshal.

    I certainly hope this works out - but I have been sold this with Bitcoin, Silk Road, etc, etc, ad nauseum. Demonstrate the bloody thing works, and we can talk. Potential is great - but don't forget the slavers fight dirty and have a whole hell of a lot of interest in making this not work.

  • Cytotoxic||

    " I have been sold this with Bitcoin, Silk Road, etc, etc, ad nauseum. "

    And those things work (except when say the guy running the website is wildly uncautious in his operations).

    It's been demonstrated. It works.

  • Free Society||

    I don't understand, what was Switzy's crime? Are you upset that he's popular and his opinions are generally respected, while you are an unpopular twelve year old and basically no one takes you seriously?

  • An Innocent Man||

    I have a feeling that wasn't directed at Swiss per se, but was a prepared response that was going to be aimed at whomever commented first.

  • Cytotoxic||

    His crime was to say something dumb and useless. This is also your crime and basically your entire MO.

    " you are an unpopular twelve year old and basically no one takes you seriously?"

    That's some mighty fine projection there.

  • ||

    This is a technology that, in my rather simple opinion, COULD (if it gains the critical mass and avoids usurpation) utterly change the current economic system, in a more free market and individualistic manner.

    So, freer where Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Brandon Eich, George Soros, Warren Buffett, Donald Trump, and The Kochs are more like the rest of us economically or freer where they're more like the rest of us socially?

    Seriously, for every time I see bitcoin and 'the blockchain' held up as a tool to fight 'unfair by design' economics about 60% of the time it's stuff unfair stuff that I agree with or that makes sense like 'end the Fed' the other 40% it's stuff that's patent bullshit like 'debt is unfair'.

  • generalisimo14||

    To answer your question, both economic and socially free, not equal. What I mean is that it establishes a system of exchange that is not easily controlled by political (coercive) means, but is controlled by economic means (voluntary exchange). So yes, it is systemically fairer than the current system, because it is free and voluntary not compelled through violence like our current cronyism system. Free market and free society are synonymous and correlate. The basic premise is our inalienable human right to private property. To be free you must let others do the same. “Unfair/Fair” is simply a perspective depending on whichever end of the gun you are at the end of.

  • ||

    What I mean is that it establishes a system of exchange that is not easily controlled by political (coercive) means,
    ...
    Plenty of criticism out there, mostly from the authoritarians or sheep, who either want to maintain control or stay safe under a warm state blanky.

    I see that it has thoroughly dispelled the need for social coercion from your life. So inalienable rights enjoyed by myself, George Soros, and Donald Trump will be more free once the three of us adopt Ethereum? What happens if my notion of free trade/speech differs from the two of them? Does my right to not make a gay wedding cake trump their right to purchase one from me?

    Free market and free society correlate, but they are not anything but superficially synonymous unless you have some really messed up definitions of market and/or society.

  • generalisimo14||

    Point by point.
    So inalienable rights enjoyed by myself, George Soros, and Donald Trump will be more free once the three of us adopt Ethereum?Yes, but it will take more than 3 people!
    What happens if my notion of free trade/speech differs from the two of them? Nothing happens, your notion is your’s and can differ from everyone else’s. No thought police here.
    Does my right to not make a gay wedding cake trump their right to purchase one from me? Yes (classical liberalism 101), you have the right to dispose of your property as you see fit, unless you aggress upon the rights of another. Trump and Soros will have to go to another person who will voluntarily provide the cake. No compulsion here. Funny to think of Soros and Trump in a gay wedding, that’s a power couple!
    Ethereum and blockchain based programs like it are simply tools that can be used to facilitate a free market. They are not the market. We are the market; everyone who voluntarily exchanges.

  • ||

    Ethereum and blockchain based programs like it are simply tools that can be used to facilitate a free market. They are not the market. We are the market; everyone who voluntarily exchanges.

    So, having written no code and just by discussing it, it's gone from a technology that will bring freedom to a tool that can be used to further propagate freedom.

    If you'd started with the latter, I probably wouldn't have disagreed. The fact that you led with the former makes me think the suggested outcome of the latter is between unlikely and exceedingly unlikely and that the former is very probably a lie.

    One or two more posts and we'll have you admitting, at least sometimes, that the problem with some freedoms/inalienable rights isn't the tools but the people (not) conducting the exchanges.

  • ||

    And when I say, 'the former is a lie', I don't mean "You lied to me!". I mean, "You know freedom is a hard problem that probably can't be solved algorithmically, but you'd/we'd like to pretend it can."

  • Cytotoxic||

    "The fact that you led with the former makes me think the suggested outcome of the latter is between unlikely and exceedingly unlikely and that the former is very probably a lie."

    That is some John-level mindreading BS right. I mean, it's not even mind-reading. "He said something this way, therefore Ethereum will probably fail!"

    It's clear that generalissmo is vastly more well-informed than you and that engaging you is a waste of time.

  • ||

    forming one powerful global computer that could one day match the capabilities of a Facebook or a Google.

    So... 20% of Internet searches in China?

  • GILMORE™||

    i'm sure this wont be banned because it enables terrorism as soon as the buyout deal w/ google falls through

  • AlmightyJB||

    If we let people be free then the terrorist win

  • PeterU||

    it won't be banned because any ban can't be enforced. Ethereum is like bittorrent, no matter how badly organizations and governments try, it can't be stopped. That is the power of decentralization.

  • JWatts||

    "But how does Ethereum bring together these scattered nodes into one network? By using the groundbreaking organizational system known as a blockchain, which The Economist has aptly dubbed "the trust machine.""

    That sounds computationally expensive.

  • bassjoe||

    That's debatable. Of course, the protocol is about a year old now and does not have a single actual application running on it, yet, so who knows.

  • Overt||

    The problem is not computational expense, it is speed. Essentially you are embedding code into the blockchain, and each time it is extended, the miner executes that code.

    So you are guaranteed that your code will run. But you don't really have a guarantee of when.

  • PeterU||

    Well yea, the computations will cost. Ethereum has a built in token called "ether", and any unstoppable code you wish to run on the ethereum network has to be paid for using ether. If you don't pay, it won't run.

  • AlmightyJB||

    So replacing a few mega corps with one giant mega mega corp? What's Etherium's revenue structure?

  • bassjoe||

    Ethereum is just an Internet protocol. The developers building on top of the protocol can monetize it any way they can.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Ethereum is just an Internet protocol

    What's the advantage of it over "https"?

  • bassjoe||

    Blockchain magic. To be honest, I don't really know. They are hyping "smart contracts" pretty strongly but I do not think there's much meat to those things.

  • Overt||

    The idea of the block chain is that it is a massively distributed ledger. Computers all around the world are executing instructions on the block chain, extending it and moving on. The consensus model ensures that you don't need a third party to confirm your transaction- instead all the other hosts extending the block chain do.

    Etherium adds onto this by making it so that the block chain can not only show transactions, but execute arbitrary code. So you and I make a bet about who will be president. You can encode in your commit a contract that checks on Fox News on January 20th who is president.

  • ||

    Ethereum is just an Internet protocol.

    Right, which means the whole "No one can shut down ethereum because there is no ethereum company." line 100% handwaving bullshit.

    Apparently, in the process of manufacturing trust, you have to produce tons of bullshit as well.

  • PeterU||

    Actually, we have seen this before with file sharing. The centralized systems were easily shutdown by authorities (do you remember the napster shutdown in 2001?), but there is no way to shut down bittorrent. That is the power of decentralized protocols. And that is why ethereum is a big deal. Now instead of filesharing, you can have code that can't be stopped, you have smart contracts that are self enforcing, and decentralized applications that can't be censored.

  • ||

    Maybe you can't shut down BitTorrent or Ethereum on a technical level, but you can sure as hell shut them down on a sociopolitical level. The problem is that almost every technical scheme relies, on some level, on the at least tacit cooperation of people who aren't on your side or invested in your success. If governments started ordering telcos to block any traffic that looked like BitTorrent, ordering OS makers to refuse to support applications that looked like BitTorrent, and imprisoning the makers or distributors of BitTorrent software, how long do you think it would remain useful?

    Sure, on a technical level, it would still be possible: you use workarounds, you use nonstandard ports, you encrypt your traffic,etc. But making something illegal or extremely difficult is going to stop its widespread adoption, and you are not going to change the world with your special protocol that you share only with the other 98 extremely motivated geeks around the world

  • PeterU||

    well, they have had 15 years to try and shutdown bittorent on a sociopolitical level, but nothing they have tried seemed to have any effect. If people want it, they will get around any roadblocks.

  • ||

    You do realize Napster was shut down because people were stealing (actual stealing and "stealing") music, right? That a self-enforcing contract is, literally, a self-licking ice cream cone, right?

    You act like this technology isn't a double-edged sword. The fact that the overwhelming majority of inventors throughout history acknowledge their technology as such means it is exceedingly likely that you're underestimating either the complexity of the situation, your enemy(ies), or both.

    The same technology that would allow Amazon to keep fraudsters from hucking stolen phones on their marketplace would be the same technology that keeps Wikileaks off their servers and/or out of their marketplace.

  • PeterU||

    Smart contracts are extremely useful. We can now remove middlemen and the need for trust for many types of transactions. if I wanted to buy a digital asset, say, a domain name, we can set up a smart contract that only transfers the domain name if payment is received. That leaves no room for cheating and removes the need for a middleman to take a cut of the transaction.

    I only used napster as an example to show the weakness in centralized systems. When you have a centralized system, you have a single point of failure. With decentralized technology, there is no central point of failure. If someone was stealing music using a decentralized torrent protocol, can they be stopped? nope, at least, no where near as easily as shutting down one napster server. If someone was sharing files that showed government corruption was happening, could that be stopped? nope. If someone is playing poker using a system such as ethereum, can the government stop that? nope. Do you see what I mean now? decentralized technologies, by their nature, remove power from centralized organizations and gives it to the peer-to-peer users. So if it is a double edge sword, then tell me, in what way has bittorent, which has existed for 15 years, been used to give centralized organizations more power? it hasn't.

  • ||

    If people want it, they will get around any roadblocks.

    True before Ethereum, no *more True* after.

    So if it is a double edge sword, then tell me, in what way has bittorent, which has existed for 15 years, been used to give centralized organizations more power?

    Do you mean in a strictly technical senseor a more socio-political sense?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Attack of the sophist luddites.

  • Cytotoxic||

    "Right, which means the whole "No one can shut down ethereum because there is no ethereum company." line 100% handwaving bullshit."

    No it isn't, unless you think the authorities are ever going to shut down the internet (they are probably not).

    It is actually you that is pushing bullshit.

  • ||

    No it isn't, unless you think the authorities are ever going to shut down the internet (they are probably not).

    See China above. Even in this country, it's given them unprecedented power to monitor people and made brazen statism enormously popular, why would they do that?

  • Cytotoxic||

    "it's given them unprecedented power to monitor people and made brazen statism enormously popular"

    Oh bullshit. The stuff the FBI was doing in the '60s was worse, and there is no evidence it has made statism any more popular.

  • bassjoe||

    Please. A well-maintained firewall can be written to block these protocols from functioning sufficiently or at all.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    And then mesh networking will route around the government firewalls.

    Computers are already so damned fast that software defined radios are a reality. This is where the software shapes waveforms in real time, scaring the bejayzus out of bureaucrats who suddenly can't lean on manufacturers to not include certain frequencies in their hardware.

    Practical and widespread mesh networking is not far off.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I read about that. Gives me the willies, in a good way. I need to read more about that.

  • generalisimo14||

    Ethereum is open source so incentives for the maintenance of the network (revenue structure, i.e. bitcoin mining) are built into the code and are auditable by all. This would be an interesting conversation about the compare/contrast of this as a coercive (non-voluntary) tax on the user, and the economic implication in a free market. However, with Ethereum there would be other “Ethereum” like competitors to offer choice, provided no central authority can claim a monopoly through coercion.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Just what the world needs. A bigger, better, global derpbook

  • PeterU||

    but that is not what ethereum is.

  • generalisimo14||

    Agree, not what Ethereum is. Folks on this site (less the statist Trolls) should pay attention as this jives completely with a free market economics and classical liberal worldview. Bitcoin was rev 1, it has massive network/install value, and so Ethereum has some catching up to do but still has a huge upside potential. Most, if not nearly all, of the great ideas that will move our economy forward using this tech have yet to be imagined. Exciting!

  • bassjoe||

    Maybe. Maybe not.

    The problem with these "decentralized" protocols is that the vast majority of people using the protocols want somebody else to take care of the details of running them, which creates a centralized regulated industry on top of the protocol. Bitcoin -- that which allows you to be your own bank -- is dominated by regulated financial institutions.

    Will that change with Ethereum "smart contracts". Most likely not. Those smart contracts still have to be written and executed. Most likely people will look to "trusted" sources to write those contracts and ensure they're properly executed.

  • generalisimo14||

    You can trust code, not people. Computers are ruthlessly obedient and code can be reviewed, while people have free will and intentions cannot be reviewed. Would you trust your wealth to an individual who could pull a Madoff on you, or a Digital Autonomous Corporation (DAC) who intentions are scripted and could be understood completely with digital precision? Not to mention the code is incorruptible, as the consensus model of validation inhibits alteration without the networks concurrence. It’s all about trust. I trust math more than a corruptible securities/insurance/government agent.

  • bassjoe||

    Yes, you can trust code, that is the exact problem. Code is only as good as it is written and it is written by... people. Code that is written with flaws or bugs will return flawed or buggy results. Code that is maliciously written to surreptitiously harm people can easily pass by multiple levels of review.

    It's ridiculously naive that people think a DAC -- an entity that by design has no corporate officers, no jurisdictional home base, etc. -- is somehow superior to existing corporate entities. A ruthlessly obedient DAC can and will be corrupted by black-hat actors or by simple negligence that cannot be easily detected until after massive harm is committed; what can you do if your DAC blasts all of your money into an irreversible blockchain void following a routing update because nothing on the test-net indicated changing X to Y would lead to problem? Nothing.

  • generalisimo14||

    No such thing as perfect. There are vulnerabilities, i.e. 51% attack and possible future issues (quantum computing and cryptographic cracking), but I don't think you are aware of the rigor that has been applied to this tech and the verifiable trust in the system. To date, black hat actors have not successfully hacked the code and there is MASSIVE resistance by state actors to not allow this to come to fruition. Sure they have attacked the ancillary apps (MtGox being the most visible) but the source code has so far proved unhackable, due to open source, distributed, and cryptographic characteristics. Additionally, once a critical mass of acceptance is reached all participants are incentivized to keep it going.

  • ||

    You can trust code, not people.

    Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. — Brian W. Kernighan

    So, how does one person write their own code such that they themselves, by definition, cannot trust and need to debug?

    Bernie Madoff was smart enough to swindle a lot of people. If Ethereum solves the Bernie Madoff problem, does it make the Madoffs dumber or the victims smarter? In either case, do you really expect no unintended consequences?

    In the Bernie Madoff example, please clarify how 'I trust math more than a...' is a more rational response than 'I trust Jesus more than a...'?

  • generalisimo14||

    Go read up on the tech. It has been scrutinized to a very high level of confidence and much effort has been expended. But again nothing is perfect, so there will be unforeseen issues and consequences. Also, I’m not speaking about hardware failures or externally caused errors, which can and are mitigated as they are discovered.
    I like the quote; however, this is not a physical law but a cliché.
    Automating with code removes the human component, which can lie, cheat, and steal. A program can only do exactly as programed, and cannot make a decision not based on the coding. Therefore you can trust that the DAC will do exactly as coded. The issues arise when the coding is not designed correctly as intended. This is not an issue with the system, but the syntax. Do you trust that 2 + 2 = 4 more or less than if Madoff taking care of your hard earned dollars?
    There are other attributes of the system that reduce the likelihood of fraud. For example, a triple ledger accounting system using the blockchain public ledger could be designed to ensure transparency of a firm’s fiduciary position. No more accounting shenanigans.
    DACs are fascinating and inevitable. Too much on this subject for this thread.

  • ||

    Go read up on the tech. It has been scrutinized to a very high level of confidence and much effort has been expended.

    Are they all as zealous as you? Because, while I know it's not a physical law or an original thought, lots of smart people being really enthusiastic about algorithms does not a correct answer make.

    Therefore you can trust that the DAC will do exactly as coded. The issues arise when the coding is not designed correctly as intended. This is not an issue with the system, but the syntax. Do you trust that 2 + 2 = 4 more or less than if Madoff taking care of your hard earned dollars?

    People weren't going to Bernie Madoff because they could thoroughly vet where every dollar was gonna go and where/when it was gonna come back to them. DACs are interesting and inevitable, the Rapture they herald remains largely TBD.

  • Cytotoxic||

    "People weren't going to Bernie Madoff because they could thoroughly vet where every dollar was gonna go and where/when it was gonna come back to them. "

    Pretty sure that's EXACTLY WHY anyone trusts there money to anyone. Is there any stupid thing you won't say to get your contrarian pessimist boner on?

  • generalisimo14||

    OK, I'll bite for one last comment.
    You peruse Reason, so you must be at least interested in liberty or you are trolling to sate your personal issues. Either way the fact is that the blockchain is real and a very powerful invention. Bitcoin and eCurrency are not a new phenomenon. What is novel is the blockchain, and it changes everything. With the blockchain, one can make TRUSTED exchanges of value, without intermediaries. Think about that for a minute. Nearly every exchange (outside of all cash handshake deals) necessitates a 3rd party, by design.

  • generalisimo14||

    This 3rd party wields vast power and control due to their position as the gatekeeper, or underwriter, or clearinghouse to our exchanges. Cash is used in illicit exchanges because it is not as easily regulated or controlled, it is freer. Now imagine the increase in the marginal utility if 1 party to every transaction can be eliminated as unnecessary due to the blockchain. Trillions and trillions of dollars in exchange are affected daily; the results are staggering and completely disruptive to the status quo. Blockchain tech has other uses besides currency, and Ethereum is a growth of that movement, blockchain 2.0 if you will. There are also other possible impacts of Ethereum and BTC on freedom, such as the elimination of government fiat currency in favor of a naturally deflationary and decentralized currency, micro-payments, micro-lending, crowd funding, accessing the unbanked, and the list goes on. The ability to dispose of you property in a manner that best suits your values should excite anyone who realizes the underlying foundation of liberty, which are private property rights. So yeah, I get a little zealous, because these ideas are worthy of my energy and enthusiasm.

  • Cytotoxic||

    "Bitcoin -- that which allows you to be your own bank -- is dominated by regulated financial institutions."

    No it isn't.

  • bassjoe||

    The vast majority of Bitcoin funds are held in regulated institutions or regularly pass through regulated institutions. Just because people sell a few hundred bucks from their Android phone's wallet to some guy they meet at Starbucks doesn't make Bitcoin unregulated money.

  • generalisimo14||

    Bitcoins are not held in any institution, but are coded on a decentralized network throughout the world. However, to convert fiat currency or capital to bitcoin, you must use the current system in some fashion, which is regulated. Or you could mine, or you could exchange another commodity. The stranglehold is that not enough people know of, understand, or believe (trust is the crux of the whole thing) in these crypto-coins to put their hard earned capital into them and accept them for exchange. Hence the importance of educating people about this stuff. The propaganda against it is slowing acceptance and reinforcing the current crony system. If you look at the definition of money, the only thing BTC is not is “widely accepted”. BTW BTC is currently regulated as a commodity.

  • bassjoe||

    Oh God, you're on of those magic bean dreamers.

  • generalisimo14||

    If you mean enthusiastic enough to try to give out good info on forums and put my money where my mouth is then yes. I bought BTC @ $1.32 ;)
    Do you have a reasoned argument supporting your cynicism or do you just blow hard?

  • Cytotoxic||

    That does not in any way mean that BTC is 'dominated' by big banks. They own it. They don't control it.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    On Ethereum, the same types of services offered by companies like Facebook, Google, Ebay, and Amazon, will be provided instead by computers distributed around the globe.

    Guess I'm confused. Aren't services offered by companies like Facebook, Google, Ebay, and Amazon provided by computers distributed around the globe? What's the catch?

  • bassjoe||

    Google is centralized and controlled by a single corporate entity. In theory, Ethereum Google won't be. In theory.

  • Homple||

    I hate that tinkly music playing in the video when people are talking. Is that a millennial thing?

  • AlmightyJB||

    I thinks it's purpose is to make nerd talk seem hip.

  • Rich||

    So, when will Hit & Run be Ethereumized?

  • AlmightyJB||

    It has to be Urethramized first.

  • Free Society||

    Nothing you jam into my eurethra is going to promote freedom.

  • Millennial Hipster Vanguard||

    Urethral sounds stimulate the prostate allowing you to free yourself of an ounce of semen.

  • Free Society||

    fluid oz?

  • generalisimo14||

    I would advise all liberty minded individuals to become conversant in this technology as it facilitates exactly the decentralized paradigm that we value above the conceited tyranny of centralization. “The Age of Cryptocurrency” (Vigna, Casey) has a great breakdown of the blockchain protocol for the lay person. It even has a small segment on Ethereum (blockchain 2.0). This technology has the potential to by world altering by providing a “trust” mechanism that can be utilized to verify nearly any transaction as being legit, without centralized control. This touches ANY EXCHANGE requiring a semblance of legitimacy. Of course those who currently run the show have a vested interest in not allowing that to happen, or to usurp the movement early (see Ripple). Achilles heel is the further development of quantum computing and the fall of current encryption methods.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Can quantum computing be used to make quantum encryption?

  • generalisimo14||

    Don't know! I'm only topically acquainted with quantum computing. I get the physics for the hardware but the coding is beyond me right now due to the complexities of superimposed states.

  • Bob K||

    My only question (and probably 99% of internet users): How with this effect porn?

  • PeterU||

    If it does have any effect, it will only make it better.

  • ||

    It won't. It might affect it, though. (Next up, how it will affect Grammar Naziism...)

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    It could effect some porn. I certainly see a fair amount of technofapping going on here.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Does this tech compete for the same niche as MaidSafe/Storj?

  • generalisimo14||

    No. MaidSafe/Storj are to Ethereum, as battleships are to steel manufacturing. They are but a small specific subset (distributed secure storage application) of possible uses for a broad class of technology (blockchain network). There can also be many different blockchains for many different uses, interacting an countless ways, but all with the underlying "trust" of the blockchain.

  • Dylboz||

    This reads like a corporate press release or marketing one sheet. Is there no downside? No criticism? Nothing a wary, cynical reporter might look into, you know, to get the rest of the story?

  • generalisimo14||

    Plenty of criticism out there, mostly from the authoritarians or sheep, who either want to maintain control or stay safe under a warm state blanky. The blockchain tech has had 7 years to mature and has undergone several iterations of improvement, no such thing as perfect (criticism and editing in action). My best advice is to please find out more about it and draw your own conclusions.

  • bassjoe||

    There's also completely legitimate criticism that "smart contracts" are overhyped bullshit.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Which no one here has demonstrated.

  • gphx||

    Blockchain tech is decentralizing, and decentralization is freedom. Look at upcoming open source apps such as OpenBazaar. The idea is basically this: at marketplaces such as Ebay or Amazon listing fees for sellers are substantial, greatly increasing prices. With an application where there is no controlling third party to levy fees lower prices can be passed on to the consumer and providers in such marketplaces can inherently be the lowest cost providers.

    You could actually buy from whom you want, instead of whom a corporation deems to approve as a seller, at the actual price you and a second party agree upon, minus any fees which would otherwise be levied by a third party solely for the 'privilege' of listing an item for sale. Basically Ebay or Amazon only loads cheaper.

    Whether the particular Blockchain implementation is Bitcoin or Ethereum is a separate argument. Just a tip though, one is open source and the other is controlled by a large corporation.

  • TwixTs||

    I would like to see this take off and how it deals with the scale-ability problems Bit coin seems headed into. Not a bad hype piece though.

  • Buy Bitcoin Website||

  • Buy Bitcoin Website||

Click here to follow Reason on Instagram

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online