Here’s why you have to start taking bitcoin seriously [marketwatch]
Self-Driving Cars Could Save Millions Of Lives — But There’s A Catch [huffington post]
Who Controls OpenBazaar? [openbazzar blog]
Apple can comply with the FBI court order [trail of bits blog]
China’s Subprime Crisis Is Here [bloomberg]
The Blockchain Gang [slate]
What can blockchain do for you? [ibm.com]
From Smart Contracts to Courts with not so Smart Judges [ethereum.com]
It’s time to kill the $100 bill [washington post]
Technical Roadblock Might Shatter Bitcoin Dreams [MIT technology review]
Muneeb Ali of Onename has a thoughtful article which explains why Bitcoin is not like a traditional open source software project.
Forking a stand-alone software, like a browser or OS, and implementing changes is quite different from pushing changes to a networking protocol.
Historically, we’ve seen that pushing updates to networking protocols is a slow and tedious process; IPv4 to IPv6 comes to mind. You can upgrade, but other nodes also need to understand the new protocol that you’re using.
The Bitcoin network is not a typical computer network. It has built in economic incentives for people to switch to the largest network. An attempt to make nodes upgrade can result in either:
a) the network quickly converging on a single version or
b) splitting into two separate networks that use different currencies.
Read the rest at Forking a Network — Medium
Ending the Bitcoin Civil War [Dr.Washington Sanchez]
AI will take the jobs of half the world’s population by 2045 [techradar.com]
The blog post this morning by a group calling itself the Bitcoin Roundtable composed of some prominent bitcoin businesses, exchanges, wallets, miners, and mining pools, is a powerful statement that Bitcoin will impose decentralization.
This statement almost all but eliminates the likelihood of Bitcoin Hard Fork for 2016 and perhaps beyond.
Below the most crucial points of the statement;
We think any contentious hard-fork contains additional risks and potentially may result in two incompatible blockchain versions, if improperly implemented. To avoid potential losses for all bitcoin users, we need to minimize the risks. It is our firm belief that a contentious hard-fork right now would be extremely detrimental to the bitcoin ecosystem.
We must ensure that future changes to code relating to consensus rules are done in a safe and balanced way. We also believe that hard-forks should only be activated if they have widespread consensus and long enough deployment timelines. The deployment of hard-forks without widespread consensus is dangerous and has the potential to cause trust and monetary losses.
Rational actors are realizing that a Hard Fork implies leaving the protocol for a new one, and you cannot attempt this without a high level of certainty that you are bring along the entire network with you or you run enormous economic risk.
The continued failure of so many to attempt to fork the protocol is a positive event. Bitcoin today is almost impervious to internal or external political theft. There are few assets in the world today that can make such a claim.
I will make a note however that you cannot call for consensus, when it comes to a hard rule change. While this maybe a highly abstract point, even calling for someone to “come to consensus” implies that they must agree with your point of view.
In Bitcoin the only agreement all participants make is a self evident one, they agree to use the protocol and its rules today.
Consensus in a decentralized political system is something that arises, it cannot be imposed or coordinated. Either there is consensus or there is not. This is why hard rules changes are almost impossible to implement in the manner which many have been attempting, by trying to coordinate a sudden network change, or trying even to using the threat of majority hashing to do it.
No matter how benevolent or innovative this change is Bitcoin is anti-change, anti-political because that is what makes Bitcoin and this is what truly secures Bitcoin.
As such the approach to future changes to Bitcoin must one that focuses on working within the existing rules and one where a hard rule change if it ever comes will be the result of organic deprecation over an extremely long time horizon.
For the full statement A Call for Consensus — Medium
If you are still under the impression that Bitcoin “refuses” to innovate or some participants seem to be dragging their feet, it is because you are viewing Bitcoin through the lens of the existing world paradigm, and Bitcoin requires a new approach.
Gold Traders Are Betting on a Bigger Comeback [bloomberg]
How Bitcoin Moves Forward [blue matt blog]
The Tiny Startup Racing Google To Build A Quantum Computing Chip [mit technology review]