Another crypto revolution: the blockchain banking market has soared to a record $3 billion


Imagine a train containing humanity. Ahead of the train is a locomotive. Its cabin has huge side and windshield windows. Maximum visibility allows you to make decisions at junctions, choosing where to direct the train - right or left.

The locomotive is followed by passenger cars. There is no windshield there. But there are large side windows. You can press your cheek against them and look ahead. But the horizon is no longer the same. At most, the contours of the near future are visible.

Passenger cars are followed by freight cars. There are no windows, only slits through which you can see glimpses of the outside world. You can no longer look forward through the cracks, no matter how hard you press against the walls of the car.

They close the composition of the tank. People travel in them too. A tank is a sealed volume without windows or cracks. Neither sound, nor light, nor the smell of the outside world penetrates there. If for people in passenger and freight cars a goal outside the carriage is possible, then for people in a tank such a goal is impossible. Because they have no concept of “outside” the tank. For them, the concept of “existence” is limited to the visible space of the barrel.

So, the first group of people traveling in the locomotive knows the reality of the external world to the same extent as the reality of the internal space of the locomotive. They see a purpose beyond the current life and practically focus on this guiding star.

The second group of people knows about the outside world. Understands that there may be a goal there. They can talk about the world beyond the boundaries of the carriage, fantasize about what it is and what prospects it may offer. But since they don’t see any purpose for themselves there, things don’t go beyond talk. All their landmarks are only inside the carriage.

The third group of people also knows about the outside world. Anyone who doubts can verify this by looking through the crack. But a crack is not a window. You can't see a clear picture through it. Therefore, the world outside the carriage is more an abstraction for them than a reality. Although they do not deny that there is something beyond the framework, and therefore there can be a goal there. But this is in theory. In practice, they focus exclusively on targets inside the carriage.

The fourth group of people are those who do not have the very concept of “outer world”. They cannot even imagine a target outside the tank because they have no concept of “outside the tank.” To them it sounds something like “outside the universe.” Their only reality is the space inside the tank.

Humanity is distributed in the following proportion: a small part travels in a locomotive - one out of a million (or even out of ten, out of a hundred million). Hundredths of a percent travel in passenger cars. Tenths of a percent – ​​in commodity ones. Approximately 99.9% of humanity travels through life in sealed tank containers.

I was in the tank for a long time. The vision horizon was appropriate. Thinking too. My goals were simple and straightforward, within the framework of drinking/eating, looking for money and using it to buy various pleasures and things (mostly unnecessary). I didn't ask myself why I was doing this. I followed the system's instructions.

One day I had a question: what is the point in all this? Here I was born, I live, I do something every day... Why? Do I need this? Is what I'm doing right? What do I ultimately want? Can I call any of what I strive for the meaning of my life? Can I say that this is exactly what I was born for?

After reviewing my goals, I discovered that not a single goal matches the meaning of life. I didn't know the answer to a single question. It turned out that my life was absolutely aimless and completely meaningless. On the one hand, it was unpleasant to realize this fact. But on the other hand, what else can you call a life in which there is no main goal and meaning?

Modern people do not like the question of the meaning of life. Because there is nothing to answer. It is impossible to call career or money meaning. To say that the main goal of life is to plant a tree, build a house and raise a child... This is more like a slogan veiling the meaninglessness of life.

What do you call a life whose meaning you don’t know? A rational answer to such a question looks like an insult, and people do not want to try it on themselves. “This role is abusive, and I ask you not to use it on me” (film “Ivan Vasilyevich changes his profession”).

Having started to think about the meaning of life, I was sure that I would quickly find the answer. But instead, new questions arose, even more complex. For example, what is my personality? What is the surrounding reality? Was the world always there or did it appear once? What awaits me after death: something or nothing? Where do the concepts of good and evil, norms and taboos come from?

I was not happy with the religious or atheistic answers because neither of them were properly substantiated. They were asked to be believed. But I didn’t want to believe other people’s unsubstantiated statements. I didn’t want to be an old-regime believer, no matter whether of a religious or atheistic nature. I wanted to know.

A correct move in chess results from covering the entire board. It is impossible to understand how to walk correctly if part of the board is visible. You can understand what the meaning of life is only by understanding what the world is. Without such an understanding there is nothing to draw a conclusion from.

Let me explain what I mean with a specific example. Let's take a religious person. He believes that God created the world, animals and people. God ordered man to live according to the commandments. Whoever builds his life with a focus on God's will is promised paradise. Whoever lives guided by his own will, and it contradicts God’s, is guaranteed hell.

From such a worldview arise the concepts of good and evil. The status of good is fulfilling God's commandments. Their violation is considered evil. Whatever helps you get to heaven is good. What interferes is evil. For example, if sex brings momentary joy, but leads to hell, it is evil. If fasting and prayer are difficult and inconvenient, but lead to heaven, this is good.

From these concepts grow all the others: conscience, honesty, justice, rationality and everything else. A scale of values, norms and taboos, acceptable and undesirable arises. But most importantly, the meaning of life is derived from the idea of ​​the world - to go to heaven and avoid hell. This gives a guideline on how to build your life - what is possible and what is not.

I do not touch upon the question of how accurate the believer’s view of the world is. The only emphasis is on the fact that he has a view of the whole world - a worldview from which answers to big questions flow: what the world is, who he is, what will happen to him after death, and so on. From this are derived the key concepts of good and evil, values, norms and taboos.

Most call the worldview the visible part

world - your opinion, a set of tastes and views. But it is incorrect to call a view of a part of the world, no matter how large that part, a view of the whole world. This is not a world-view, but a parts-view (a clumsy but accurate term). Worldview is a view of the whole World. Covering not only our Universe with all its vastness of time and space, but also everything that exists. All possible conceivable and inconceivable parallel worlds, and any options for existence. And plus the reasons for the appearance of everything that exists (if one is discovered). And the embrace of the totality of all this is a worldview. If it is less, this is no longer a view of the Whole, but of a part of the Whole.

If there is no coverage of the entire chessboard, it is impossible to think about the correct move. With partial coverage, any move is meaningless. At best, it will be aimed at immediate gain. For example, you can eat a pawn without seeing that as a result you lose your queen.

If there is no scope for the whole world, it is impossible to answer the question of what is the meaning of life. Everything falls into emptiness. Energy and time will inevitably be wasted on routine. People leading such a life inevitably turn into empty townsfolk. It doesn’t matter whether the ordinary people are rich or poor, whether they become presidents or homeless. It is important that in any case they are doomed to lead a meaningless life.

Thoughts like these carried me from the tank to the boxcar. For the first time in my life, I looked through the crack and saw with my own eyes that the world does not end with the confines of a carriage. Beyond the boundaries the outside world begins. And it is completely different from the world inside the tank and carriage. The usual space turned out to be only a small part of infinity.

I passionately wanted to see more. I found myself in a passenger carriage. Large windows offered a huge view. It became clear that the world was rushing somewhere. But where exactly was not visible from the passenger carriage. And without this it was impossible to deduce the main goal and meaning of life. This meant that it was necessary to move further - into the locomotive.

I started trying this way and that, but none of my attempts were successful. Having truly convinced myself of my helplessness, I became convinced that I alone could not cope with such a task. There is a catastrophic lack of intellectual resources.

The task could only be solved as a team. The situation was as if we had entered a cave and the exit was blocked with a large stone. No one can move it alone. We need a common effort. One by one, as in the song of “Nautilus Pompilius”, no matter what melody you play, you always play the end call. The rise can only be played together.

If I decided to write a book about mountaineering with the goal of making money from selling it, the main goal would be to sell as many copies as possible. The target audience in this case would be everyone interested in mountaineering and able to pay for the book. Legless and armless, too, because money doesn’t smell.

But if my goal was to gather a group to climb a mountain, my profit would be measured not in money, but in people. And in this case, the armless and legless are not needed in any form. Only people capable of mountaineering are needed. I would give the book away for free to my target audience. The goal determines the strategy and nature of the action.

I am writing this book with one single goal - to find people with similar thoughts and team up with them. Therefore, the book is distributed online for free. It is published in paper at the request of readers who want to have a material version.

I am gathering a critical amount of supporters, where everyone, continuing the song “Bound by one chain / Bound by one goal,” will carry with them all of humanity, the whole world. Together we will move the stone and enter from a meaningless existence into a new life.

* * *

To make it easier for my readers to make the right decision whether to read or not, I will make a number of statements. First: I do not recommend it to believers. There is a chance that the book will shake or even destroy your religious view of the world and your usual value system. As a result, it will disturb your peace of mind.

Please note that I am not saying that this will definitely happen. I'm just saying that there is a chance to lose your usual view of the world and peace of mind. Do you want to eliminate the possibility of such shocks? Do not read this information.

Second: I do not make thought dependent on the source. While I deny the religious view of the world set forth in sacred texts, I do not deny the depth of thought in many phrases. If in general I consider religion to be a delusion, it does not follow from this that there cannot be depth in the words expressed by religious figures - prophets, philosophers and simply believers. On the contrary, it very well can, since they think on a global scale. But ordinary people, in principle, cannot have such thoughts, because their thinking is within the boundaries of the ordinary and everyday scale.

If a negative character expresses a strong thought, its strength does not disappear because it has a negative original source. If a positive character expresses a weak thought, it will not be strengthened by the fact that it has a positive primary source.

A thought must be evaluated independently, without reference to its source. If a stupid, negative and mentally ill person, muttering incoherent words, suddenly accidentally utters a phrase expressing a deep thought, the power of this thought will not suffer in any way because it was born in this way. If an idea is expressed by a bloodthirsty maniac or a sick idiot, this does not detract from its value. Thought is free from source and carrier.

This is one of the reasons I don't subscribe. I want people to evaluate thought not through the prism of “who said it,” but in its pure form. For the same reason, I quote religious phrases, categorically denying a religious view of the world.

Third: I do not recommend the book to people who are strictly oriented towards moral principles, sexual norms and taboos, as well as traditionalists and patriots in all their diversity. As in the case of religion, there is a risk that it will seriously shake your views, leaving you without clear guidelines - in prostration. It is dangerous to test the truth of your beliefs. History shows that those who begin to question their fundamental beliefs risk losing them.

I address my book primarily to innovative people who are not only able to accept new things, but are also ready to do in practice what is considered to be true in theory. Who has the potential to cross all boundaries of all norms and patterns. For those who consider arguments from the “this is the way it is” series, they are not guidelines and a guide to action. So we can say that everyone has their own taste in food, music, sex, clothing. There are no universal human values ​​and never have been. The concepts of good and evil are relative. The world is divided into friends and strangers. Justice is a literary concept. The universe is indifferent.

I get asked quite often what age is this book aimed at? I don’t know, because biological age has nothing to do with the scale, intelligence, will and other components of a person.

All people are divided into two groups. Some develop until they are 40–50 years old, then decide that everything has outlived its usefulness, it’s time to think about the soul. And they quietly slide down. In theory, one cannot expect them to strive for something new. They look at their life as a process of survival.

There is no need to give special examples - such people surround each of us in a dense ring. Look at your parents or older people. They don't expect anything from life. Their guideline is not the new, but the preservation of what is existing.

Others live smoothly until they are 40–50 years old, and then take off from the accumulated experience like a rocket. Before this, they seemed to be waiting for an opportunity. When experience and chance coincide, he goes to the stars. For example, Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Jesuit order, became crippled at the age of 40 without work or education. He had nothing but his mind, will and accumulated knowledge about life and people. And he started from scratch - at that age he sat down at a school desk. Among his classmates he found four ideological supporters, from whom the Jesuit order grew. A decade later it became one of the most powerful organizations on the planet.

It is impossible to know what my initiative will result in. Anything is possible, including what seems absolutely unreal. If you look at it objectively, the world consists of something that, according to probability theory, could not exist. You can imagine what chances your parents had to meet. What about your grandparents? If one of the billions of accidents had not happened, the chain of events was interrupted, and you would not be in the world. But you exist, which clearly confirms: anything can happen. And achieving your goal too.

Why blockchain is attractive for fintech

1. High level of security.

It is impossible to fake or replace an operation carried out on the blockchain network.

2. Extended Validation Checking.

Using blockchain, you can solve two important problems - control information and avoid duplication. Each block contains four important information elements:

  • a unique hash number (a kind of identifier) ​​consisting of a random set of numbers;
  • the hash number of the previous block, which determines the chronological order of the operation in the block;
  • a list of all operations included in the block;
  • the public key of the recipient and the sender, which is the identifier of the transaction.

If any of these elements are damaged, the operation is rejected.

3. Validation verification occurs much faster than is currently customary.

There is no need to wait for confirmation from a centralized authority, such as a bank.

4. Increased resistance to cyber attacks.

The absence of a central node confirming the transaction makes common DDoS attacks against the center of the DNS network ineffective.

5. Transparency.

None of the transactions entered into a block can be changed or deleted. Information about all operations is available to all network users.

6. Empowering users.

Each network user has direct access to all information stored in blocks and transaction history.

7. Reducing operating costs of banks, including through the elimination of intermediaries.

According to the international consulting company Accucenture, the introduction of blockchain will allow banks to save about $12 billion per year by 2025, and consumers will pay less for international transfers.

Related materials

00:03 — September 24, 2018

New Mavrodi

He wanted to surpass MMM.
Russians' money is in danger But Bobby Lee did not stop and already strongly criticized criminal liability for money laundering; in his opinion, not a single financial transaction should be prosecuted in principle. “Remittances need to be completely decriminalized,” Lee insisted. To be convincing, he gave an example from personal experience, when in Las Vegas he wanted to withdraw 20 thousand dollars in cash to play with it in a casino, but bank representatives for a long time refused to give him such a large sum, asking him about the purposes for which these the money will go. True, when asked what would be considered a crime then, in the case of, for example, corruption schemes or illegal withdrawal of funds abroad, Lee did not find anything to say - the answer was so vague that, it seems, no one understood him.

But Lee ended on a pompous and terrible note, calling for preparations “for a war for freedom.” This, of course, was about financial freedom from any influence of the state or third party. At the same time, Bobby admitted that he believes in democracy and does not act from an anarchist position, despite all the anti-state pathos.

A chaotic lecture by Bobby Lee and a presentation in the best traditions of student creations in PowerPoint gave way to the main panel session of the first day - “Pains and Fears in 2018”. The discussion began with a thoughtful speech by the co-founder of the Everсoin crypto exchange and crypto wallet, Miko Matsumura. “Pain is good, fear is good. Fear and pain are what help you not harm yourself,” he shared his knowledge. Miko insisted that any shock to the industry is good, as it matures. The co-founder and president of the Hosho project, Hartey Soni, agreed with Miko. According to him, the young industry should keep its “hand over the fire” - that is, make mistakes and learn from them. “There is no experience without mistakes,” he concluded.

Charlie Lee

Photo: Coinsbank

Managing Director at Blockchain Advisory Ltd., advisor to the Maltese government on cryptocurrency regulation, Jonathan Galia was the first and probably the only one to identify the industry's real problem. In his opinion, the key complexity of the cryptocurrency market in the next 5-20 years will be based on issues of regulation by the state. He called the key mistake of the authorities the desire to centralize a decentralized system - officials simply do not understand that this is impossible.

The brother of the main speaker of the first day, Charlie Lee, expressed the opinion that the key task of the industry remains in the popularization and education of new members of the community. “People look at the ICO market and are disappointed in the world of cryptocurrencies, but it is an important and rewarding experience,” he said from the stage. Charlie insists that people don't understand how to save their money - they keep their savings in new and unknown instruments.

“We need to offer them tools that are simpler and more modern than they are used to,” he noted. But Bobby Lee was not so interested in the problems of society, rather the opposite. “People must learn to swim, although some will have to drown to do this, in the sense of going bankrupt. I think it will take a generation or two before the market finally settles down,” Bobby said.

BigX project representative Khalid Dianov supported Charlie: the crypto industry needs to use all methods of popularization. As an example, he cited an advertisement for Merrill Lynch, which 80 years ago bought a small strip on the front page of newspapers, where it talked about the ease of making money using a stock exchange account. “This has led to almost every American now being an investor,” Khalid said. He is confident that ordinary people need the same thing - they want to understand how the crypto industry works. However, he expects the real popularization of crypto only after multi-billion dollar expenditures from really large players - their money will give a fundamentally new impetus to the development of the industry, Dianov is sure.

Khalid Dianov

Photo: Coinsbank

The panel ended with an unexpected question from the audience - a representative of Puerto Rico asked: “What if the entire industry is not needed by humanity at all, and future generations will simply abandon it?” Hartey Sony volunteered to answer, and in a rather daring manner, he sent the speaker to “read Satoshi’s notes” - according to Sony, they already “have answers to all such questions.”

The new day of the forum was opened by Miko Matsumura, already known to part of the audience. He revealed his theses about the “usefulness of pain and fears” somewhat more broadly: pain helps you learn, and fears force you to think and make the right decisions, minimizing your risks. The speaker himself spoke about his main mistake in life - investing in Apple shares. Miko admitted that he bought them at a local peak and sold them when they fell - he panicked and decided to get rid of them. Now Apple shares are one of the most expensive in the world. Miko does not regret the mistake; on the contrary, it taught him a lot, especially how to invest.

Miko Matsumura

Photo: Coinsbank

Miko quickly became bored with the “pain-fear” dichotomy, and he moved on to a very bold thesis: “the capitalization of cryptocurrencies will surpass all existing money on the planet.” At the same time, he immediately questioned this thesis: according to him, the main mistake of all cryptonomics is returning to the chain of a “third party.” “You and I are idiots, we again gave everything to a third party - crypto exchanges and wallets, which destroy the very idea of ​​decentralized exchange of coins without the participation of a third party,” said Miko Matsumura, who also owns one of the exchanges.

White Paper is a cross between a policy document and an advertising brochure for a project or company. The document must convince a potential investor or client to buy a product, pay for a service, or invest money in your project.

The speaker’s speech did not correspond in any way to the stated topic “New Fundamentals: A Look at the State of Cryptocurrency Infrastructure” - not a word was said about the infrastructure and operation of the systems, but the discussion once again arose about which cryptocurrency - Bitcoin (BTC) or BCH (Bitcoin Cash) ) - closer to the ideas of Satoshi Nakamoto's White Paper. Miko stated that BCH, in his opinion, is much closer to the ideas of the original. By the way, Bobby Lee held a similar opinion when answering a similar question on the first day. The speech of the next speaker, Roger Ver, an ardent fan of BCH, was devoted to the same topic.

Roger Ver began his speech with a nice story about how he read about the prototypes of cryptocurrencies in science fiction books in his childhood, so when he learned about their existence in 2011, he was “blown away” - he spent a week completely immerse himself in the topic, lost weight and even ended up in the hospital. From the story of growing up, Ver moved on to general words about the importance of economic freedoms, but quickly slipped into comparing two cryptocurrencies. For about 30 minutes, the speaker tried to prove to the audience the advantages of BCH over BTC, using a PowerPoint presentation that many first-year students would do better. Vera’s general message is very simple: “Bitcoin has degraded and lost all its advantages, which Bitcoin Cash now embodies” - and so on for almost the entire speech with the stated topic: “How electronic money will change the world.”

Roger Ver

Photo: Coinsbank

The odious Vera was replaced on stage by the much less charismatic, but no less modest Charlie Lee. He began his session with a quote from US Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell that cryptocurrencies have no fundamental value. On the next “school level” slides, Charlie Lee did not hesitate to quote himself: “Cryptocurrencies have a fundamental value” - after uttering such a banal statement, the audience in the hall burst into applause, and Charlie began to criticize fiat money. Lee talked about the US dollar for “infinity,” namely the Fed’s ability to endlessly print new bills and, as a result, the dollar’s ​​ability to depreciate.

However, Charlie quickly moved away from his stated topic “The value of cryptocurrency” and quickly fell into advertising his own coins - Litecoin. From the presentation, we learned that Roger Ver is wrong, and his BCH is inferior to Charlie Lee’s cryptocurrency on all counts, as is the Ethereum cryptocurrency and classic Bitcoin. At the end of the performance, Charlie Lee looked a little pathetic - people began to fill the main hall in anticipation of the headliner of the day, John McAfee, and the audience's interest in the blatant Litecoin advertising dropped sharply.

John McAfee was announced as the main speaker of the entire forum - the name of the Scottish-American founder of the McAfee company was remembered everywhere: from casual acquaintances during breakfast to smoking rooms on a ship. Someone even said that he spent his evening “in the company of young girls and a mountain of cocaine in front of them,” judging by the number of nose touches in one of his interviews on the ship, such theories have a right to exist.

( 2 ratings, average 4 out of 5 )
Did you like the article? Share with friends:
For any suggestions regarding the site: [email protected]
Для любых предложений по сайту: [email protected]