Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About dgul

  • Rank
    HPC Veteran

Recent Profile Visitors

1,896 profile views
  1. They're bankrupt now. They're just going over the paperwork. Sad thing is, it won't even be worth going to the firesale -- even with massive discounts they'll be more expensive than online.
  2. Hmm. I don't know about the exposure, but don't quote an agency which is part of the organisation that needs to show it was a success.
  3. That number is irrelevant. Like all the nonsense about netting up derivatives. The UK exports about £20bln financial services to the EU pa, about 1/3rd of the total worth of FS exports, and is worth about £180 billion in total (so EU export component is ~ 10% of the industry). If we lost all the EU work it would have a significant impact, but it wouldn't take everything to zero. [The contribution to GDP is also an interesting point. There are serious questions regarding the value of FS to the UK -- or, at least, the value over-and-above a minimum quantity of FS that is required to
  4. Okay -- I'll put it a different way. In a normal SOTA robust distributed database setup, how often does it go down (obviously not often -- but never?) Then ask, how often does the Bitcoin blockchain go down.
  5. But that makes it sound easy. The reality is robust distributed data is still difficult to do, and companies spend vast amounts of time and money getting reliability up from 99.99% to 99.9999%. Blockchain does this quite readily.
  6. No. What I'm saying is that there are avenues that governments could take it they wanted. I'm not saying it is going to happen. I'm not saying it is likely to happen. I'm not saying that it would be necessary, or that it would be proportionate given what they allow in other financial areas. But people said 'they' couldn't do anything about Bitcoin. I gave an example of how 'they' could. Don't like it? Tough. Don't think it is going to happen -- well, there are plenty of other avenues that 'they' could take if they wanted. What I'm definitely saying that if 'they' wanted t
  7. The point I was trying to make is that if they wanted to make it difficult your bank would just say 'ah, we need to put that through our dedicated crypto-trust team. The background checks will be £500. That okay?' Then you'd say 'But it is obvious, it is just from this sale', and they'd smile and say 'yes, but we need to put it through our dedicated crypto-trust team.' No problem with a property sale. Less good for a £1k transaction. Much more complex when it came from a pile of transactions where your diverse group of mates* payed you back after you continuously stumped up for the c
  8. Blockchain is, right now, a very workable alternative to many lock-propagate-unlock database problems. There is absolutely a compelling reason to change -- it is much more robust against damage. It is a bit like early networks vs IP -- the automatic rerouting inherent in IP resulted in networks that were vastly more robust. On chain data storage is fundamentally the same price as any journalled database (with the same number of nodes) See, the problem is you're just thinking of 'blockchain is like Ethereum' or 'blockchain needs proof-of-work' or 'blockchain is fundamentally public
  9. I was responding to Errol who first used 'they'. I'd assumed he'd be referring to states that might like to constrain crypto. Legal tender status is not relevant. 'They' could stop you using £s if they wanted to -- just demand that any deposit in a bank worth more than £100 (or whatever) was accompanied by receipts etc showing where it came from. Obviously, they're not going to do that (as it would upset voters), but they really don't care about a relatively small number of bitcoin enthusiasts.
  10. But I agree about Ethereum. It is currently the only useful public blockchain. I intend to use it on a project that I'm putting together. My main problem with it is that even though the data storage costs (write) are meant to be independent of the Eth spot (or, at least, it is supposed to scale linearly, so same effect), the storage costs have been increasing recently. I've found this a bit concerning -- if they can't keep the write costs under control then it will become a bit of a risk for me. If it gets any worse I think someone will release a competing blockchain that can stay sen
  11. No. You're missing the potential of blockchain. You're stuck with thinking of it like a public transaction record keeping system. For the ticketing application -- BA went down earlier this year because their database wasn't sufficiently robust. A blockchain approach would pretty much resolve this potential problem. This is of massive benefit to the airlines. All that mucking about with helping insurance companies is just fluff.
  12. Stand back from this for a moment. Are you trying to state every reason for the reduction in value whilst keeping your core belief intact? Or is your core belief what was wrong?
  13. People have been saying for the last month that Bitcoin has been pumped up specifically for people to make money shorting futures while they dump. They've also been saying that it has been setting up for at least 6 months. If the regulated futures were a catalyst, it was for the massive rise in prices since early Summer -- any crash is just a side-effect.
  14. If they actually wanted to stop it they'd just shove a layer of money-laundering requirements on top. Say, you'd have to submit records to the bank dealing with the £ side of the transaction detailing where all the elements had come from, perhaps going back in the chain to show that there'd never been any 'where's that come from' money. That would remove all the high street banks from taking money from the exchanges, and you'd be left with a handful of specialist banks with suitably specialist fees. Result -- they effectively eliminate crypto without actually 'banning it'.
  15. Blockchain is just a robust distributed database (with journal). I'd imagine that for most applications all the crunching would be done on company owned (but distributed) servers. I'm thinking things like share records, flight ticketing, that sort of thing. Note -- you (the user) won't touch (or be able to see) the blockchain. It is all for the company providing the service. For smaller players, there will be a role of blockchain in providing public accessible data services but where there also a requirement for the data to be certain to live beyond the entity creating the data (eg, d
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.