Computer Science Prof Destroys /biz in 4 Slides

[Anonymous No.8694346]

This guy destroys /biz investment strategy in four slides.

https://twitter.com/ncweaver/status/980485587827224577

[Anonymous No.8694438]

>>8694346
I counted 5 retard

[Anonymous No.8694475]

>>8694346
>computer science PROFESSOR
opinion discarded

[Anonymous No.8694489]

>>8694438
I mean the very fact alone that he points out all those things banned in the 30s in that last slide, as if they don't happen in anywhere else but in crypto makes him a big fucking retarded. But again, wtf could cs people know about finance...

[Anonymous No.8694524]

Buying high and selling low doesn't actually work?
OOOHHH NOOOOOOO

Also
>Every semester in my first lecture I make the point that I suffer from depression
top kek

[Anonymous No.8694525]

If he was smart he would be a chemical engineer

[Anonymous No.8694544]

>>8694346
>berkley
>Computer "science" professor

[Anonymous No.8694572]

>>8694489
Finance guy here.
Think what you think about all the other stuff, but he is actually spot on in this regard.

[Anonymous No.8694620]

>>8694346
What the fuck does his bullshit FUD about "smart contracts" even mean?

[Anonymous No.8694639]

>>8694346
>"provably"
Stopped reading there

[Anonymous No.8694652]

>>8694346
Sounds like a no coiner brainlet.

[Anonymous No.8694663]

>>8694620
Regular contracts are subject to constant review, changes, interpretation etc. - law is fluid. Sometimes it ends up in court, as both parties disagree with each other. But in 90% of all cases, both parties agree on something without even consulting a lawyer, when something is not clear in a contract.

A smart contract is like a program. Shit goes in, shit comes out. And in this case, it is non-changable shit, which no lawyer and no appealing or outside agreement with the other party can discuss or enforce with a court.

[Anonymous No.8694683]

>>8694346
the butthurt shines thru lol

[Anonymous No.8694706]

seems like hes trolling for april fools

[Anonymous No.8694709]

>>8694346
All of his faggot libtard points apply to fiat currency as well. So ban all forms of money? Hes definitely a faggot Marxist.

[Anonymous No.8694726]

>>8694620
Maybe the POWH contracts that resulted in some programmer just taking all the ethereum for himself?

[Anonymous No.8694735]

Virtue Signalling Mentally Unstable Society Blaming Cuckboy.

[Anonymous No.8694736]

>>8694663
Clause in agreement can allow for settlement of disputes (eg. faulty data, misdelivery or whatever) in court. Smart contracts save man hours on contracts that don't need to be disputed.

[Anonymous No.8694752]

>>8694346
berkley, cuck, suffers from mental illness, anti Trump

what a jolly fellow

[Anonymous No.8694792]

>>8694620
You don't put more than 4 or 5 sentences on a slide, and never that long... I'd hate to be his student.
t. professorfag

[Anonymous No.8694811]

>>8694346
He's not wrong but he's also not right

[Anonymous No.8694825]

>>8694620
spoof trading wasn't banned until the 2010s

hard to take him seriously when he can't get facts right

[Anonymous No.8694856]

>>8694620
I believe he means there is no way to patch smart contract in production, once deployed it is available for everyone to see and therefore an object of potential hacker attack and because bugs are inevitable it is only a matter of time when a critical exploit on some poorly written contract will be found and money will be stolen
See Parity extravaganza

[Anonymous No.8694860]

An economist here. I couldn't care less about crypto_currencies_ -- but smart contracts are really something. I don't think he's doing any sort of justice to the concept. Even with my superficial exposure to contract theory and mechanism design I think they have a lot of potential.

[Anonymous No.8694868]

>bought at 20k
>pic related

[Anonymous No.8694893]

LOL just look at his face defeated & cuckolded

can never listen to such a person

[Anonymous No.8694901]

>>8694346
>this guy is some sort of genious
he probably thinks people who trade or hold crypto don't know this stuff

[Anonymous No.8694904]

How the fuck is this person a “professor”? He comes off as incompetent and ignorant. Computer science professor my ass.

[Anonymous No.8694910]

>>8694572
he's spot on when taken verbatim. yes, crude, blatant, brainlet-level manipulation will be limited to unregulated markets (surprise, surprise). however, to then imply more insidious methods are not part of the financial system is fucking stupid (and if hes not implying that, then there's no point bringing this up to begin with. you'll be ripped off either way as a normie)

[Anonymous No.8694918]

love how none of you gave a serious refutation to his points and are just name calling
makes you wonder if he's right after all

[Anonymous No.8694923]

>>8694524
>>Every semester in my first lecture I make the point that I suffer from depression

Probably suffering from depression due to the fact he most likely knew about Bitcoin back in 2010 but didn't buy because "muh ponzi"

[Anonymous No.8694976]

>>8694918
Of course he's fucking right, this ecosystem is rife with scams. It doesn't mean crypto is the problem. What's wrong with you?

[Anonymous No.8694978]

>>8694918
>the town idiot is yelling about shit again, but nobody will refute him so he must have a point!

[Anonymous No.8694981]

I bet that this Comp.Sci fragilista Nicholas Weaver don't even have skin in the game. If he truly believed this, he would always short Bitcoin.

[Anonymous No.8694988]

>>8694736
Not nearly the majority of contractual changes are against the will of all participating parties, which is what many CS-people tend to forget.

Today, we sit with at least 4 people together, to deal with a contract. The parties with their corresponding lawyer. If they want, a simple call from one lawyer to the other can(!) be enough to change the content of the contract. Or sometimes even a verbal agreement between the parties with no lawyer present (can be the case in e.g. Germany, if you are an executive).

With smart contracts, we sit down with at least 6 people. The parties with their corresponding lawyer and their corresponding programmer.
A change, no matter how small, need all of them to need to come together and work on it.

The workload you save on the one side gets added on the other side, multiplied by ten.

[Anonymous No.8695035]

>>8694988
But once you have made a standard contract, wouldn't it just require one people at either side to accept it in the future - I believe there are economies of scale involved.

[Anonymous No.8695044]

>>8694910
>to then imply more insidious methods are not part of the financial system is fucking stupid
Which is not the point.
Is there manipulation in regular markets? Hell yeah.
Does this somehow justify to apply brainlet-level-manipulation to lure in the gullibles? No.

Also, please keep in mind, that he has only 5 minutes to deliver his message (found the tweet). Considering this, it is actually okay.

[Anonymous No.8695052]

>>8694346
typical r/buttcoin poster

[Anonymous No.8695082]

>>8694346
coiners btfo!! bitcoin on suicide watch

[Anonymous No.8695141]

>>8694709
hey burger, making this liberal vs. conservative isn't useful here. sorry if that fucks with your self-identity.

[Anonymous No.8695144]

>>8695035
Not in real business.

There, you have either standard contracts in between two parties that know each other. They might know each other for a long time and want to be more flexible, based on a call. Think about Party A, selling Cars in bulks to Party B for about 20 years now - they might not even care if the contract is based on paper at the time they make the deal, delivery or payment and just do it for paperwork later on. They trust each other.

Other cases require a single tailored contract, but both parties have a different degree of acceptance regarding the fault tollerance of contracts. Think about Party A selling to a friend of aforementioned Party B, lets call him Party C. A might accept a delay in payment which differes from the contract, because Party B vouches for him after the contract was made. If C does not pay, B migth end up with a obligation to pay instead, depending on how he vouched.

Law and business behaviour cannot be put into code. It is up for debate, which cannot be standardized.


The only thing that could be standardized, would be your average buy of a coffee.

[Anonymous No.8695176]

>>8694346
LOL, YOU NIGGERS GOT BTFO

[Anonymous No.8695177]

>>8695044
ok, then go ahead and start gui trading against hft setups and lets see how that goes. Oh thats not manipulation? Neither were those other things until the norman lost a fuckton of money. The end effect is the same, if you have no idea what you are doing you shouldn't be actively participating in market micro structure. To point this out in some kind of presentation as a point against btc is fucking weak as fuck

[Anonymous No.8695222]

finance guy here.
twitter is for faggots, that is all.

[Anonymous No.8695249]

>>8694620
THE USELESSNESS OF ETH

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH

[Anonymous No.8695254]

>>8695144
>The only thing that could be standardized, would be your average buy of a coffee.

As someone in law school, I agree strongly with the idea of "law and business behavior cannot be put into code," but I think times are a-changin', and in the future, contracts/business will start to be more streamlined. You make a contract with x conditions, you're held to that contract. We're going to have the technology to make that a reality, and we never had that tech before.

So maybe people will at first use smart contracts very skeptically and carefully, but contracts may become more and more streamlined in the future, saving us cost of lawyers, etc. but at the cost of having to perform the contract in the exact terms originally specified. It sounds a lot more efficient that way, anyways, and efficiency is the driving force behind all of this.

[Anonymous No.8695270]

>>8694981
This.

I bet he has an excuse about people being irrational and things with no value going up.

[Anonymous No.8695273]

>>8695177
The degree and target is completely different. No regular guy does compete against high frequency or algo traders - and these trades usually do not cause relevant volatility, that would kick out Mr. Everyday out of his position or cause significant deviations from the true value of a stock (please do not start a fundamental discussion over my wordings here, I am sure you know what I mean).

[Anonymous No.8695279]

>>8695144
Say, I'm a farmer and want to hedge my crops from bad weather, so I buy a futures contract that protects me from cold/rainy weather.

Wouldn't all this be standardized, where's the extensive need for lawyers, programmers and management?

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/weatherderivative.asp

(Suppose the blockchain has decentralized oracles interacting with weather stations for a given period.)

[Anonymous No.8695323]

>>8694475
t. IQ 80

[Anonymous No.8695326]

>>8695254
No. The horse and buggy will always be the reliable best mode of transportation and the internet will be trumped by the newspaper simply because the web is too slow.

[Anonymous No.8695382]

>>8695326
just admit you are fucked. People are getting #woke.

[Anonymous No.8695400]

>>8695254
As your studies progress - or at the latest, when you start to work afterwards - you will see that it is not possible to streamline law this way. It might seem this way, until you see the nuances that are actually the core of disputes in front of a court. If the questions that lead two parties would be solveable via simple lines of code, there would be no need to dispute anything in front of a court.

If you would streamline these nuances out of the law, we would still end up with what I wrote in >>8694988

The problem is not what is written in the law or what past rulings were. It is about debating if e.g. circumstances leading to a contract are valid ("Is party A able to enter a contract in the first place?"). It is debating and considering past behavior and possible future outcome, whcih cannot be put into code.

[Anonymous No.8695425]

>>8695382
He agrees with you. Good luck in law school.

[Anonymous No.8695427]

Btfo prof, there are million of use cases for smart contracts. Lets say your service provider guarantees 99,99% uptime. Why would an smart contract not be the ideal way to ensure such an thing?

[Anonymous No.8695431]

>>8694346

[Anonymous No.8695447]

>>8695425
Can't you post new memes at least fuck.

[Anonymous No.8695461]

>>8695279
What do you do, if the smart contract is somehow tampered with and you do not get paid, because all the ETH was sent not to you, but an unknown adress. What if this not only happened with you but also your neighbours and friends? One immaginable attack vector would be to influence the weather stations in question.

Wouldnt you want to sue?
If the answer is "yes", you dont need a blockchain, as you can rely on futures we have today.
If the answer is "no", you accept a plethora of attack vectors as a given, that could ruin your life if a single one of these is not closed.

[Anonymous No.8695503]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aG6-LMxtKrk

This fucking guy goes into this massive fucking rant. When you could have mined 200 bitcoin in a day. Why not do that and keep them just encase...

[Anonymous No.8695507]

>>8695425
That wasn't me. Learn to read ID's, they exist for a reason.

>>8695400
I understand your point but I still think there's a use-case for smart contracts. To dismiss them completely because "people will disagree on things" is missing the point I think. We're like two boats passing in the night here with our points though because I agree with everything you're saying, and at the same time, still think smart contracts will catch on in some industries, post related >>8695279

[Anonymous No.8695557]

>>8695503
>>Every semester in my first lecture I make the point that I suffer from depression

[Anonymous No.8695607]

>>8695557
>I'm a fat fucking slob who makes the most disgusting noises during a presentation.

But look how bad all these other people are....

[Anonymous No.8695608]

>>8695461
My interpretation of a smart contract wasn't that it would be somehow irrevocable in the court of law, but just a standardized way of settling complicated transactions, saving trouble and manpower in the process. But I could be mistaken.

Say, if you have a weather insurance, you'd have to file a claim, someone would have to process it, and then only afterwards you'd get reimbursed for the damages. This all could take place instantaneously with smart contracts.
Now, if there's something fishy, like someone tampering with the weather station data (a highly unlikely scenario, but possible), you'd go through the old paper trail.

What comes to unknown addresses -- don't allow them.

[Anonymous No.8695619]

>>8694620
>banned in the 1930s
Who believes it's not all still going on and they've come up with more ways to fuck us retail cucks over?

[Anonymous No.8695638]

>>8695461
>if the smart contract is somehow tampered with
Anon, I...

[Anonymous No.8695665]

>>8695507
Maybe and it would be in all of our interest if it would be this way. I just think the actual usecases are very small for smart contracts.

I btw just thought about a good example which actually happened, where smart contracts caused problems. Red Pulse had their ICO last year in October I think - the "Block 025-problem" caused a disagreement in the understanding of time between humans (analogue way of thinking) and the NEO blockchain (digital way of thinking). Debatable from a legal point of view, not debatable in code and not actually intended by any of the participants.

[Anonymous No.8695692]

Probably the next biggest effect block chain will have is on payroll. Imagine automatic distrubutions and payments with complete records and immutability on a private company block chain.

[Anonymous No.8695696]

FUD.
Not very true.

[Anonymous No.8695704]

He's just a nocoiner that missed out right? That's all this is.

[Anonymous No.8695710]

>>8695692
unironically this

[Anonymous No.8695744]

Even if I appear to be shilling, give me your thoughts on this:

https://unibright.io/

Personally, I think it's the second ICO I am going to ever participate in, even amidst a bear market.

[Anonymous No.8695751]

>>8695692
>"private company block chain"
aka a SQL database

[Anonymous No.8695764]

>>8694663
You fucking brainlet
Of course smart contracts are not designed to replace complicated agreements like strategic partnerships or joint venture contracts. It’s made for simple contracts where there is a trust problem which makes them difficult and nasty for both parties. For example, insurances. Have you ever tried to actually get paid by an insurer? They will automatically assume fraud on your side and will do whatever is possible in order not to pay and you and currently it’s an absolute hassle. Won’t have that with smart contracts and a sensor which determines whether the insurance case occurred or not.

[Anonymous No.8695766]

>>8695608
You mean in a purely technological way with all security measures still in place? Thinkable. But I doubt it would be as gamechanging as e.g. the internet. I can immagine that completely removing the trust in these processes is not intended, especially when we talk about formalities and the need for human trust in some processes (some which do not need a lawyer, but just the eye of a trained and sworn in person).

>>8695638
DAO
You are welcome.

[Anonymous No.8695783]

>>8695751
You are retarded. Everyone hates that shit.

[Anonymous No.8695813]

>>8695783
how exactly is a "private blockchain" better than a SQL database? Blockchain is only useful if you need a decentralized, permissionless system. Which a payroll system definitely is not. Why would anyone design an internal payroll system around a blockchain instead of a regular database?

[Anonymous No.8695849]

>>8695044
>Also, please keep in mind, that he has only 5 minutes to deliver his message >>8695503

He has been doing this for years now........ Apparently everyone who was in bitcoin was crazy and this thing would never take off.

This guy wins the retard of the year award imho.

[Anonymous No.8695921]

>>8695813
Mainly so they don't have to pay someone to run the database

[Anonymous No.8695956]

>>8694489
For anyone wondering "if this tech is so great, why isnt industry using it already?"
This should show you how smart people can waste their smarts rationalising fundamentally incorrect beliefs

[Anonymous No.8695970]

>>8694346
>investment strategy
lol you rate me too highly

[Anonymous No.8695985]

It's safe to say that *very* few people a) understand technical/strategic areas of business to know why blockchain is useful, b) understand organisational theory enough to understand why blockchain is useful, and c) understand computer science enough to know why blockchain is useful.

You'll inevitably come across cuckboys like in OP who are experts in one of these, and can confidently say "Yes maybe you're an expert in settlement issues that occur with SWIFT, but tell me why an append-only database with trusted transactors isn't a better solution". Or alternatively, "Yes maybe you understand why blockchain consensus mechanisms are safer than centralised databases, but tell me why this is an issue for supply chain transparency in the buttplug industry when we already have SAP ERP integration across all functions blah blah blah". These are unanswerable questions because again, inevitably, not many people understand all sides of the coin.

Whenever anybody is questioning any technical advances with firm opinions, ask yourself if they're an expert in all the domains that it involves. They almost definitely are not. Their opinion is worthless.

[Anonymous No.8695990]

>>8695813
this. At first I thought they don't get it, but I think they're being intentionally obtuse about it

[Anonymous No.8696001]

>>8694663
Lmao. I mean, how can you write that second paragraph, with all those big words, and not realise how retarded it is?
Like, did you even think about it for a second before you clicked post?

[Anonymous No.8696009]

>>8695764
Yes, I had some cases in my life, where I required my insurance to pay. I never had problems, sorry if this was the case for you.

Still not a good example - insurance papers are often standardized at the beginning, but start to consider single circumstances in case the money is needed. And there, we enter what I wrote above - disputes and discussions.

Is it tedious? Yes.
Is it long? Yes.
Do a lot of bad actors abuse these rules? Hell yeah. And I do not want to come to defend these actors.

But the non-reversibility shifts the danger to such a degree onto the company, that the risk premiums would be insane. I would be all for testing such trustless measures in this regard, but even then, all things need to be considered. And in the end, all what you call "hassle" would most likely still be there.

[Anonymous No.8696035]

>>8695990
God DAMNIT lol,
You try running a redundant, secure, global database that sends and receives 1000s of entries a day

[Anonymous No.8696059]

>>8694988
If you are drafting totally new contracts for every client you should be sacked

[Anonymous No.8696065]

>>8694735
Haha, jesus.

[Anonymous No.8696070]

>>8695921
no, they'd just have to pay people to run the nodes instead, which is the same fucking thing, only probably more expensive than a high efficiency database designed for high-speed transnational processing.

[Anonymous No.8696076]

Hold up, isn't the entire first slide just
>the only problem with exchanges is that (((they))) either regulate them to death or outlaw them

And that's somehow supposed to be an argument /against/ crypto?

[Anonymous No.8696080]

>>8695956
It look the internet 20 years before corporate adoption and it look 40 years for public adoption

Just like blockchain, the only people using the internet very early on were continuity of government entities

[Anonymous No.8696085]

>>8696059
Might be because it is standard for me atm... change it to two (party A+B) and drop the lawyers, it changes nothing - because in the end, everyone needs someone who can code this shit.

[Anonymous No.8696103]

>>8696035
easily done using regular database software. how, exactly, would using blockchain improve cost or efficiency?

[Anonymous No.8696126]

>>8694735
Anti-depressants don't work, does he know this? He fell for the big pharma meme

[Anonymous No.8696131]

>>8696070
Do you know how ungodly expensive it is to build / run a global network?
Or even how expensive local backups can be?

There is no way buying a few shitcoin to power your SQL database is more expensive than hiring an expert to run a turnkey system that you also payed for

[Anonymous No.8696138]

>>8696070
It's not the same thing to accounts and for their financial strategies. Same reason companies piled onto cloud. Same reasons companies piled projects over to India. It lets them turn fixed costs into variable costs, which looks better for the immediate bottom line, even if it does end up costing more.

[Anonymous No.8696146]

>>87667508

[Anonymous No.8696150]

>>8695400
It really rustles my jimmies that people see the words smart contract, think "I know about contracts" and start spouting their retarded opinions.
Contract design is as revelant to smart contract design as phone design is to smart phone design ie. theyre basically two different things.
Pure dunning kruger.

[Anonymous No.8696159]

>>8696103
> security is easy, just use database software
t./biz/

[Anonymous No.8696163]

>>8696103
Im glad installing software on my server now installs it on my servers in china, budapest, and down the street

[Anonymous No.8696170]

>>8695503
This guy thinks he's really smart but he's actually dumb as dog shit.

I love how all these haters got absolutely beat the fuck out by time.

[Anonymous No.8696230]

>>8696170
>When you retweet rick wilson

You don't understand how reality works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAlk_3lMayU

[Anonymous No.8696231]

you'll see all these post event charlatans crawl out of their bunkers now that btc dropped from 20k to 7k. yet still up 7x since january 2017 making it easily the best performing asset class in the world

everybody is loud after the event as always.

[Anonymous No.8696239]

>>8696150
Yet I see you just pulling the usual 4chan-move of "you are a brainlet" and not delivering actual usecases which would justify any value of a cryptocurrency.

It is not that I cannot imagine that there are usecases for the tech in very narrow, small niches. It is just that it is not as nearly as revolutionary in legal tech as everybody thinks, if we put aside all the handwaiving and consider the actual reality.

[Anonymous No.8696297]

>>8695273
I understand what you mean, but your point still falls flat, at least from my point of view. Mr everyday absolutely does compete against algos and hft traders if he chooses to actively participate in the market. In fact, thats all he competes against desu. "GUI trader" is part of everyday lexicon. Predatory algorithms exist to estimate gui vs. informed trader participation and are very common (for example look into algos that exploit the tendency to trade in round lots, hell I even worked on one implementation myself).

Now the crucial difference is twofold. For one, there's no apparent cheating. Anybody can freely acquire an advanced maths degree, or build the infrastructure require to trade hft or get a team of phds etc. And of course, the more important point is that the gov being the gov erected various barriers to active entry, not out of good will or some sense of lawfulness but just to protect themselves from the norman's rage. yes fundamental divergence is rare, yes its hard to effectively manipulate volatility, etc, etc. but as I said, the methods to fuck over norman if he chooses to become an active participant are less crude, way more insidious and fully legal (well there's a discussion on hft going on at least in europe, but this will take years to figure out)

my point is, the protection offered by established law, infrastructure, etc in the end only goes so far. theres no manipulation on the macrostructure level no, but the manipulation is happening either-way and the end result is the same. as an uninformed trader you will get fucked. so we are really arguing levels here. which, as a critique of btc, doesn't make sense to me at all.

As an example, would you have argued against the financial system citing pre-2007 regulations? I wouldn't have, because I fully realize that while those are "fixed" nothing really changes as far as exploiting normies is concerned.

[Anonymous No.8696302]

>>8696239
We get it you keep rambling on about the same bullshit. What exactly is your agenda here?

[Anonymous No.8696312]

Database fags ITT

[Anonymous No.8696327]

>>8694346
God damn it i guess i have to return that 30k i made in December since blockchain is apparantly bullshit.

[Anonymous No.8696341]

>>8696239
T. Someone who has never tried to take payments over the internet, had to deal with credit card fraud, run massive servers, track items, prove to clients you aren't fucking them over

[Anonymous No.8696357]

>>8696239
Your opinions on smart contracts are not based on research, they are all based on recognising the word contract and jumping to a lot of conclusions.
It would be like assuming that "highways" have to be at high altitude and complaining about that ie. literal brainlet tier.
I had to read a lot of articles and watch a lot of talks to understand the potential here, Im not your personal wikipedia.

[Anonymous No.8696385]

>>8696239
You seem to be misinterpreting 'smart contract' as meaning a replacement for the legal system which creates and arbitrates contracts, when really it's just a means of automatically settling certain classes of contract, which would still have to be created via some legal system. E.g. every rent payment in the world. It should be really easy for you to think of examples where this would be useful, if only because it cuts out on banking middlemen, or because it reduces counterparty risk.

[Anonymous No.8696453]

>>8695813
Blockchain isn’t “just a database” and payroll needs more than a shitty sql server. It’s about automation, record keeping, immutability, redundancy, customization.

[Anonymous No.8696470]

If any of you fuckers want some actually good shilling about smart contracts, you should look into to Nick Szabos (inventor of smart contracts. Has a law and a CS degree) writings. They really helped me appreciate what smart contracts can do

[Anonymous No.8696480]

>>8696341
What convinced me that cryptocurrency (not just blockchain) will be widely adopted, was simply trying to send a small amount of legitimate money to a family member in another first world country. What a fucking pain in the ass. My credit card was frozen because, as the payment was taking so long and it was an emergency, I had the gall to use Western Union. Fuck that, it's not good enough.

[Anonymous No.8696490]

>>8696239
Here are 9 use cases for which an ICO launching soon will develop smart contract templates for firms to then apply and utilize:

5.1 Get Quotation for Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 Product Pass Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3 Shipping Process Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4 Tracking of resources during a production process
5.5 Invoice release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.6 Aircraft Production History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.7 New Hire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.8 Insurance claim processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.9 Milestone based project payment . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I won't shill its name again, but to me all of these do not appear as a very niche

[Anonymous No.8696492]

>>8694346
no shit sherlock, this is why crypto has collapsed from 800billion marketcap to 200 in a matter of months.

dont need a phd to tell us that all its value is driven by wild speculation and naive investors and greedy chinks running scams which are illegal in traditional investment markets

[Anonymous No.8696608]

>>8694346
What's preventing people from just not buying crypto?

Why get butthurt about what "stupid" people choose to do with their money?

[Anonymous No.8696640]

>>8694346
Also leave it to a Berkeleyite to piss on free markets.

[Anonymous No.8696688]

[Anonymous No.8696704]

[Anonymous No.8696723]

>>8696385
>a replacement for the legal system
agreed, this is what people imagine when they first hear "smart contracts"

[Anonymous No.8696757]

>Imagine being this retard.

[Anonymous No.8696759]

>>8696704
I have to say I hate Iot rubbish, I think most serious smart contract people are lukewarm on that stuff

[Anonymous No.8696786]

>>8696231
This. Every time it drops, no coiners come out of the woodwork to take credit for predicting it would never work. Then it reaches a new ATH and they disappear like the little academic charlatans they are.

[Anonymous No.8696790]

>>8696103
How is it redundant?
You would need multiple servers
How do you trust the server you set up in China isnt being fraudulently used?
How do you co-ordinate a shared ledger?
How do you distinguish a valid tx with an invalid one?
How do you trust the person that validated the tx?

[Anonymous No.8696796]

>>8695461
i was actually thinking about this but i am pretty fucking sure my idea is some brainlet tier ambitious shit. from the pdfs and articles ive read regarding integration of smart contracts into businesses and such, theyve talked about auditors/regulators being included in the blockchain providing them access for transparency. i think the problem youve said regarding "shit being sent to an unknown eth address" can be easily solved by an inhouse solution so they don't need to use ETH, just utilize the technology. otherwise, if they want to take advantage of what a public blockchain like ETH offers, they can just use their own tokens as a substitute for USD, like tether but made by the parties or entities transacting, in which the regulators/auditors involved oversee the whole process. so you're basically trading IOU tokens that can be minted or printed easily much like tether but also easily auditable because it's in the public blockchain. the addresses of those involved can simply be labeled, any IOU tokens sent to an address not involved can be disregarded. after every transaction, when it is redeemed, the tokens can simply be burned afterwards. i know there's some flaw in my idea but i've been pondering this question and that's juts some quick shit i thought of, sorry for the brainlet tier mess

[Anonymous No.8696813]

>>8696759
same esp regarding privacy which is why even if it takes off i wont participate in it but who knows? maybe it becomes mainstream; then it will be a widely available source of data for smart contracts

[Anonymous No.8696828]

>>8696796
part2
>>8696813
for smart contracts via oracles**

[Anonymous No.8696848]

>>8696231
>>8696786
Just because it goes up in price doesn't means it's the next best thing. Fucking tulips and beanie babies can have ridiculous appreciation in price, people act irrationally all the time.

What a retarded and irrelevant argument.

[Anonymous No.8696850]

>>8694475
>compsci PhD vs biztard.

[Anonymous No.8696856]

>>8696490
why the tokenization rather than just selling the software if this is so important?

[Anonymous No.8696859]

[Anonymous No.8696882]

>>8696856
>why the tokenization rather than just selling the software if this is so important?
you can't have a ponzi without tokens, duh dude

get with the program

[Anonymous No.8696898]

>>8695813
Consortium blockchains are absolutely going to be a thing. Private? Maybe for different divisions of a single corporate entity.

[Anonymous No.8696908]

>>8696856
dunno which ICO he's shilling but maybe it has staking capabilities so they'd need to decentralize the tokens. otherwise, first of all, fundraising, and taking advantage of public blockchain (eth in this case), or maybe blockchain agnosticism. that's always a good question regarding tokenization however since most of the time they can just use eth.

[Anonymous No.8696920]

>>8696898
yep

[Anonymous No.8696944]

>>8696908
if its just for fundraising, then you are literally admitting that they get more money from an ICO than they do in traditional IPO/venture capitalism or just straight up taking loans from banks, which means they are taking advantage of naive investors so its always a rip off to some degree.

[Anonymous No.8696968]

>>8696944
i cited different reasons, anon. you just latched on to the single thing that you can attack. i also mentioned in my last sentence that it should always be questioned because most of the time ETH can just be used, that is, your point is correct. i don't know why you need to repeat it

[Anonymous No.8696981]

>>8696850
Mate have you read the slides?
It's mostly cherry picked problems which everyone knows about or his opinion

>You need to convert fiat-crypto-fiat
Big deal, or you could just keep it as crypto

>Proof of work is centralised
Lmao not anything near as centralised as traditional fiat
Its not too hard to change mining pools
Also he completly ignores Proof of stake which solves all these issues.

>Tx can get too expensive
Lmao yeh as in any functioning market, when there's more demand than supply the price goes up
Everyone knows this is a problem which is why we're working on better scaling solutions like plasma or sharding or lightning networks
>Smart contracts are shit
Lmao what a brainlet.
>Market fraud and scams icos
Lmao k

[Anonymous No.8697047]

>>8696848
It doesn't have to be the next best thing. So long as it's something, he's wrong and FUDed something he knew about since 2013 and watched it rocket in value.

[Anonymous No.8697062]

>>8696944
I think it's a good question, they say this about the token economics:

-----------------------

The Unibright Token (UBT) is an ERC-20 utility token underlying the Unibright Framework. UBT is the only means of deploying smart contracts within the framework. Every UB Connector integration within an ERP system where information is exchanged will incur a transaction fee in UBT. It is also the only means of payment for services like deployment of SmartAdapters and integration of existing ERP Systems with the blockchain.

Only UBT can be queried and transacted within the Unibright ecosystem to guarantee standardization of the framework.

Unibright has adopted an enterprise friendly payment model to help streamline transition to UBT token usage. When a company onboards the product, they purchase a set amount of UBT using fiat. As an example, if one connection costs one UBT, worth $0.14 cents at the time of purchase, this price will be set for as long as the specified connection/integration is exchanging information.

Additional integrations are purchased according to the current price of UBT, remaining stable for the duration of that integration case, essentially on a subscription basis.

Unibright’s primary source of revenue derives from this model, which is congruous with existing ERP integration business models, including their own.
--------------

I think there still could be the aspect of ripping the naive investor in all of this, however the hard cap is at 13.5M though. But I don't want to hijack the thread for this shill.

[Anonymous No.8697069]

>>8696981
it's more of a question of whether it can reach its potential because at this point most of the arguments noted arose from the simple fact that it hasn't been widely adopted (yet). for example, fiat-crypto-fiat wouldn't be necessary in a world where you can use crypto to pay for shit (along with less volatility as price discovery ends, lessening speculation so it can be finally used as a currency. i am not a fan of currency cryptos however). smart contracts, meh i don't agree with his points as explained in my previous posts. i also think that we are being incredibly narrowminded and unimaginative regarding its potential because it still isn't that widespread. see my previous post regarding a retarded fucking washing machine; i think this will be explored more once its legitimacy has been established, when it starts to become adopted. also, his point regarding ICOs are weird because there are cases of those irl. should the whole stock market be invalidated because some airplane company without actual airplanes pumped and dumped? maybe i'm missing something though.

[Anonymous No.8697092]

>>8694346
>smart guy thinks he's smart about everything therefore he predicts this thing won't happen
patisserie

>1995 newsweek article
http://www.newsweek.com/clifford-stoll-why-web-wont-be-nirvana-185306

[Anonymous No.8697099]

>>8697047
i want to emphasise this point especially if you view it from a capitalist perspective, or rather just a profit-seeking entity's perspective. it doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better so we can minimise costs because i just want profit. i guess most people arguing against cryptos are disillusioned by the ravings of moonbois and the like citing $1M EOY for bitcoin or some shit. those very people back this price prediction by exaggerated claims about the technology

[Anonymous No.8697112]

>>8696848
Tulips and beanie babies aren't capped at 21 million retard

[Anonymous No.8697176]

>>8696126
shhhh let him take his meme pills because they make him feel better about being a loser.

[Anonymous No.8697183]

>>8696848
just like as its price goes down doesn't mean its irrevocably shit. if you were arguing with some people that blockchain is bullshit or smartcontracts are a scam, ignore them if they just cite the price because it doesn't relate in any way to the topic. similarly as its price goes down it's just retarded to consider literally every single thing about it invalidated. if bitcoin goes to 1M each you could've still been right you know

[Anonymous No.8697201]

>>8694735

VSMUSBS sounds like a nice coin to buy

[Anonymous No.8697230]

>>8697099
In my experience most people arguing against cryptos are uninformed, lazy with factual accuracy, and arguing from an emotional position.
I dont think Ive seen a single debate where the "nocoiner" was more informed.

[Anonymous No.8697308]

>>8697230
i think it mostly has to do with the fact that as someone into crypto you are the one who needs to argue its potential/capabilities, as opposed to simply throwing out some questions that if not answered can be easily seen as the coiner getting rekt. what backs this thing? where does it gets its price? how is it not a ponzi? why not just a private blockchain? why does it needs tokens? or some other gotchas that are usually asked. obviously these questions should be asked every time but when you've been in the scene for quite a long time it just gets tiring. nevermind the fact that there's an inverse correlation between shitting on crypto and its total market cap. i guess what i'm trying to say is that it's easier to talk shit than to argue against it. you don't need to be that informed to do so

[Anonymous No.8697427]

>>8697308
Nah, I see where youre coming from, but nah. Just because you are more "into" something doesnt necessarily make your arguments stronger.
For example you will see people who run ponzis get rekt by casual objectors all the time.
And the guy in the OP is as obsessed as any coiner. He has put hours of research into this.

[Anonymous No.8697463]

>>8697427
i think you misunderstood what i said. i'm not saying that if you're into crypto that your arguments are stronger. just that it's easier to shit on crypto rather than argue for it, which is why most people arguing against it are uninformed or lazy or whatever. if you are going to argue FOR crypto you need to know shit otherwise you'd look plain fucking dumb but you don't need to know much to shit on it because the onus is on the coiner to argue its legitimacy

[Anonymous No.8697523]

>>8697092
>What the Internet hucksters won't tell you is tht the Internet is one big ocean of unedited data, without any pretense of completeness. Lacking editors, reviewers or critics, the Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data. You don't know what to ignore and what's worth reading.
He was right, though...

[Anonymous No.8697549]

>>8697463
Sure, definitely a part of it. I have a hunch though that a lot of it is based on emotional reactions, and then getring entrenched.

[Anonymous No.8697650]

>>8697092
>And who'd prefer cybersex to the real thing?
People who enjoy LITTERALLY impossible sex

[Anonymous No.8697690]

>>8695751
exactly desu. that's why private blockchain is retarded

[Anonymous No.8697844]

>>8697523
Did this make it less valuable from 1995 to now?

[Anonymous No.8698326]

>>8694735
>shills the pharmajew to all his students
wew, hope he's at least getting paid