Comments on: Arthur Brock on the Blockchain’s Major Design Flaw

By: Andrew B Brown

Andrew B Brown — Mon, 09 May 2016 14:31:18 +0000

That is mostly accurate, however shows a “currency thinking”. Currencies are useful as a temporary accounting mechanism during value transfers, however, aren’t necessary. If the currency is sound (data is not tampered with), your value transfer can be just as sound without the currency.

Currencies are useful for economies of scale in creating efficiency between value transfers, such as barter.

All value transfer, including currency, is accounting.

One interesting thing that few understand, is a standard contract structure (language) replaces the need for currency at all.

By: Ian Wilson

Ian Wilson — Sat, 19 Mar 2016 21:36:27 +0000

Andy I agree with your idea re each community having its own blockchain with permission based aggregation at higher level communities. I am working on a organisational methodology/concept called CommunityLink along these lines which also addresses Mikes comment re who writes the rules. It is based around people as agents not coins as per arthurs article with what I can a UIA.or universal information account..and a multi level integrated knowledge model which orders the blockchain communities to maximise the linkages (Holistic Capital Management)….overseen by a national data administrator (Community Access) established by representative consumer, regional, industry, technology, and gov users….overseeing a trust based blockchain data registry which provides the legal basis to exchange the higher level blockchain data with commercial benefits passing back to community/UIA that created it via pre agred comunity loyalty algorithm. Now looking at an initial community blockchain mix as a smart society “product”..with smart community, smart industry , smart consumer blochchain “interlinks to start the process described by Andy.

By: Andy E. Williams

Andy E. Williams — Wed, 16 Mar 2016 14:27:51 +0000

Great point. But there’s an opportunity in that shortcoming. The blockchain is probably still great for things that require universal consensus where changes SHOULDN’T be scalable. Documents like policies, and legislation are digitized as executable processes they could potentially be guaranteed by the blockchain. On the other hand, a truly decentralized system of currency more resistant to extraction of wealth via centralized manipulation such as inflation and speculation (which bitcoin is NOT judging by the constant churn) … might need to use something else. Or following the fractal analogy … one might simply use a separate blockchain for each community, with each community periodically storing a part of that blockchain in a separate higher level blockchain for groups of communities, and part of that blockchain being stored periodically in a separate even higher level blockchain for nation-states, and so forth for regions, continents, … etc.

By: Mike Riddell

Mike Riddell — Wed, 16 Mar 2016 07:14:39 +0000

Amen to all this.

Only thing is this: who writes the rules?

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 15 Mar 2016 14:04:47 +0000

SAFE Network / MAIDSAFE, have a different sollution to this problem, where consensus is reached in smaller local groups and then validated across a truly decentralized network of storage and computing power. Ending up with a completely end to end encrypted decentralized network.

https://forum.safenetwork.io/

The first, although centralized, test versions are out with a sample app. The MVP, where user can run their own vaults should be right around the corner, ditto with encrypted messaging.