Mediaboss Marketing

Blockchain technology was introduced in 2008 as a decentralized, secure, transparent system for managing digital transactions. Its primary aim was to provide a solution to major problems with traditional transactional systems, including trust, security, decentralization and efficiency. Blockchain has since expanded beyond finance and has been used in supply chain management, healthcare, games, digital media and social media, among others.

However, the blockchain industry is still facing significant challenges such as a lack of diversity, wealth control by a few holders, hash rate problems and a loss of the promise of decentralization.

The cryptocurrency on everyones mind and in the digital wallets of more than 400 million people around the world is Bitcoin (BTC). Bitcoins hash rate is the computing power required to validate transactions and produce new blocks on the Bitcoin blockchain. A high hash rate is necessary to maintain the integrity of the Bitcoin network, but it also presents some significant challenges.

One of the most pressing issues is the high energy consumption required to maintain a high hash rate. As more miners join the network, the hash rate increases and so does the energy consumption required to sustain it. The environmental impact of BTC mining has led to concerns throughout Bitcoins volatile history and rise to mainstream fame.

Another challenge with Bitcoins hash rate is the centralization of mining power in a few large mining pools. As the hash rate has increased over time, it has become increasingly difficult for individual miners to compete with these large pools, leading to concerns about the potential for these pools to monopolize the network and control the direction of Bitcoins development.

Related: Elizabeth Warren wants the police at your door in 2024

There is also the potential for 51% attacks by mining pools that control the majority of the hash rate. If a single mining pool or a group of mining pools controls over 50% of the hash rate, they could potentially control the network and carry out malicious activities, such as double-spend attacks or rewriting transaction histories. This presents a significant threat to the security and integrity of the Bitcoin network.

Finally, the limited scalability of the Bitcoin network is another challenge associated with its hash rate. As more users join the network and the number of transactions increases, the network can become congested, leading to slow transaction times and high fees. This can limit its utility as a viable payment system and has led to ongoing debates within the Bitcoin community about how to address these scalability challenges.

The blockchain industry has quickly fallen into a massive imbalance of power, mirroring the traditional finance industry. The concentration of wealth and power within a small group of individuals has created an industry that is far from decentralized. Those who were early adopters of blockchain technology, particularly Bitcoin, were able to accumulate large amounts of wealth through mining, investing and trading.

This has led toa concentration of wealth and power within a small group of individuals. The complexity of blockchain further limited early adoption to a minuscule percentage of people in the tech world. This concentration of power and wealth has made it difficult for new players to enter the market and challenge the dominance of established players.

The high barriers to entry have also contributed to the imbalance of power in the blockchain industry. The cost of setting up and running a successful blockchain project can be significant, and not everyone has the resources or expertise to do so. This has made it difficult for new startups to enter the market and challenge the dominance of established players.

Network effects also play a role in the imbalance of power in the blockchain industry. Blockchain networks rely on network effects, which means that the value of the network increases as more people use it. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle where established networks become increasingly dominant, making it harder for new networks to gain traction.

Despite the challenges facing the blockchain industry, there are ways to address these issues and create a more sustainable, equitable system.

One of the most pressing issues with Bitcoins hash rate is its high energy consumption. To address this, the industry could move toward using renewable energy sources, such as wind or solar power, to power mining operations. This would not only reduce the environmental impact of Bitcoin mining but also make it more sustainable in the long run.

Related: CBDCs will lead to absolute government control

To address the issue of limited scalability in the Bitcoin network, efforts should be made to improve the underlying technology. This could include the development of new protocols or the adoption of existing protocols, such as the Lightning Network, which could significantly improve the speed and efficiency of Bitcoin transactions.

Finally, greater efforts should be made to educate people about blockchain technology and its potential. This could be achieved by providing greater access to information and resources, offering training programs and workshops, and working with educational institutions to integrate blockchain into their curricula.

Alexa Karp is head of marketing at Lumerin and a former founding marketing manager at Metaplex. She is also an angel investor and adviser to more than 20 Web3 projects. She graduated with a BBA degree from Baruch College in New York.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts and opinions expressed here are the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Follow this link:

Bitcoin hash rates threaten blockchain decentralization - Cointelegraph

AUSTIN, Texas What is real decentralization? Though it may be the biggest buzzword in crypto, ambiguity around the definition of decentralization heralded as a core use-case for blockchain technology remains constant fuel for controversy.

The most-hyped event in the cryptosphere of the past two months was the ARB airdrop, when Arbitrum a layer 2 rollup that allows users to transact on the Ethereum blockchain with lower fees distributed its long-awaited token to early users, builders and investors.

Arbitrums creators said they built and distributed the ARB token as a way of decentralizing control of the network, handing the reins from Offchain Labs, the company that originally built Arbitrum, to the newly created Arbitrum DAO a group comprised of newly-minted ARB token-holders.

Abitrums decentralization narrative came under fire soon after the ARB airdrop, however, when the decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) moved nearly $1 billion worth of its new tokens to the Arbitrum Foundation an organization established to serve as a kind of formally registered steward of the Arbitrum DAO before a formal vote on what to do with the funds had run its full course.

In an explanation mirroring one provided by the Arbitrum Foundation earlier this month, Goldfeder told the audience at Consensus that a ratification vote on what to do with the funds which was ongoing when the funds were transferred sowed unnecessary confusion.

He hedged his response, however, by drawing a line between his company, Offchain Labs, and the new Arbitrum Foundation: I can't speak to what the Foundation did, but leading up to creating this, that was the thought process at least, Goldfeder said.

He also said the vote fiasco resulted in a pledge from the Foundation that it will give regular transparency reports regarding its operations and the use of its treasury.

I as a community member think the place where this ended is even better, said the Arbitrum co-founder. The community seems happy and I also think, you know, transparency and accountability is a great thing.

Although Offchain Labs is, formally speaking, distinct from the Arbitrum Foundation, it would seem reasonable to question if Labs which built Arbitrum might be pulling strings behind the scenes. If there was any takeaway from Goldeders address at Consensus, it was his acute awareness that this relationship between the two organizations or lack thereof remains top of mind for people trying to suss out whether Arbitrum is, in fact, decentralized.

Asked explicitly by Nijkerk whether Offchain Labs and the Arbitrum Foundation are linked, Goldfeder stressed that they were not. Who controls the Arbitrum Foundation? Its really actually the DAO and the token holders, adding later that the important thing Id focus on is that the DAO is the most decentralized DAO that exists.

When ARB launched, however, 44% of its initial token distribution went to Offchain Labs investors and employees. Asked by Nijkerk whether this large percentage of insider tokens undermines Arbitrums decentralization narrative, Goldfeder responded that principle number one was there always has to be a majority in the hands of the community.

The counterside of 44% of tokens going to insiders, according to Goldfeder, is 56% were given to the community in different capacities: the airdrop, the foundation, the DAO, etcetera.

Goldfeder added that all tokens granted to insiders were subjected to four-year transfer restrictions to prevent any kind of mass sell-off, with nothing unlocking before one year. He said that Offchain Labs employees are not allowed to vote on Arbitrum DAO governance proposals, though they are allowed to delegate their tokens to like-minded voters.

Repeatedly, Goldfeder placed the foundation at arm's length. The foundation has a set of excellent people, he said at one point, adding that Offchain Labs gave them a lot of technical guidance as they were setting up, in servicing their goals, but remains a distinct entity.

There's a real community, he said towards the end of the Consensus session. When we say it's controlled by the community, the community is not me. It's not Offchain Labs. There's a massive community with many different interests and companies and protocols and projects that care deeply about this.

See original here:

Arbitrum Co-Founder Addresses DAO Vote Fiasco, Waves Off Allegations of Decentralization Theater - CoinDesk

Mastodon is making it easier for newcomers to create an account on the platform. On Monday, the decentralized network announced that it will start directing new users to create an account on mastodon.social instead of prompting them to choose from one of the thousands of other servers on the platform.

This update doesnt mean that Mastodons taking away the ability for new users to sign up for an account in a specific community, though. It will simply present two separate options on its signup page: Join mastodon.social or Pick my own server. The services flagship mastodon.social server is the platforms largest, but the network notes that users can swap instances at any time.

Prior to this change, creating a Mastodon account wasnt as simple as just entering your email and making a password. Mastodon originally had users choose which instance, or community, theyd like their account to live on. For those new to the platform, this step is a bit intimidating, especially now that Mastodon now has over 12,000 instances users can join. Should you join mastodon.world or mastodon.online? Or should you go to something more focused, like birdon.social? It could be overwhelming and confusing for a new user to pick.

If we only attract people who already care about decentralization, our ability to make decentralization mainstream becomes that much harder

Still, the change could frustrate existing users and server operators who want to see Mastodon remain committed to its promise of being a decentralized platform, which is not governed by any one entity. However, Mastodon CEO Eugen Rochko says this change is necessary to help new users get past the sign-up process and more quickly engage with others.

We believe its important for Mastodon to be good as a product on its own merits, and not just because of its ideology, Rochko writes in the post announcing the change. If we only attract people who already care about decentralization, our ability to make decentralization mainstream becomes that much harder.

In addition to a new onboarding experience, Mastodon is also rolling out quote posts, improved content and profile search, and groups. Rochko also says the platform is working on improving its moderation tools, as well as removing friction from decentralized features.

More here:

Mastodon is making it easier to create an account - The Verge

Since Bitcoin was invented, hundreds of cryptocurrencies have been created for various uses. A relatively new network, Algorand, uses a native cryptocurrency, ALGO, to enable the convergence of traditional and decentralized finance. Participants can create tokens and smart contracts representing new and existing assets on the Algorand platform. You may already have noticed the algorand coin pricealongside others if you are familiar with the crypto market.

The Algorand Foundation oversees the development and funding of this project and its cryptocurrency. While that is happening, the protocol was designed to facilitate a decentralized environment. Algorand is popular for its advanced features, novel technology and fast transaction speeds.

Are you interested in Algorand (ALGO) but need help figuring out where to start? This guide will help you bring yourself up to speed on the project, so you can start trading immediately.

People are also reading

Algorand (ALGO) What is it?

Algorand is a decentralized, open-source network that uses proof-of-stake to allow decentralization, scalability, and security to coexist. There's a lot of trouble with scalability, safety, and decentralization on one blockchain network. It aims to deliver full decentralization, top security and scaling while handling 1,000 transactions a second.

This project was launched in 2019 to enable emerging and existing businesses to operate in a decentralized economy. It is the native cryptocurrency within the Algorand system. ALGO participants get instant transactions with ALGO and can earn rewards. The system relies on ALGO holders and ALGO block producers or node runners.

Decentralized applications (dApps) can be built with Algorand smart contracts. Pure proof-of-stake is Algorand's scaling alternative to Ethereum's smart contracts. Users can deploy new tokens on the Algorand network or transfer existing assets.

Algorand: How does it work?

Algorand uses a pure proof-of-stake consensus mechanism with a Byzantine agreement protocol for security, scalability and decentralization. If a node breaks, automating the protection of staked ALGO balances is possible.

This protocol uses a pure proof-of-stake algorithm to secure the network. However, despite some users' power, the system is codependent.

Algorithm transactions are instant and final and can be processed 1,000 times per second. A decentralized economy has an anti-inflation mechanism that limits total supply. ALGOs are minted at the genesis and distributed to ALGO holders and network participants every time a new block is created. Algorand solves the storage problem in blockchain by letting new users participate in network storage immediately. The two-tiered decentralized network Algorand facilitates these features and protocols.

Algorand: What makes it unique?

Algorand's unique approach makes security, scaling, and decentralization all work together. Algorand can process around 1,000 transactions in a second, and makes it easy to develop, deploy, and manage dApps.

As a decentralized economy with apps and crypto assets is built, participants can create and deploy their tokens. ALGO uses pure proof-of-stake so all users, including node runners and holders, can participate in network governance and be rewarded. Algorand has unique features and novel technology, making it one of the fastest blockchain networks.

What makes Algorand valuable?

Many factors can affect Algorand's value and market price, including its technology and functions, adoption, network utility, etc.

The finite supply of Algorand makes it valuable, and ALGO's supply has been limited to 10 billion since Algorand's inception. These funds go to node runners, end users, and the Algorand Foundation. The market value of Algorand depends on buying and selling activity and market trends.

What is the circulation rate of Algorand (ALGO) coins?

The 10 billion ALGOs are estimated to be in circulation for less than a third. A total of 3.038 billion ALGOs circulated in May 2021. A certain amount of time will pass before the maximum supply of ALGO coins is exhausted. ALGO minted 10 billion coins at genesis. As with Bitcoin, the finite supply may suppress inflation.

Final words: How to use Algorand

Algorand lets you create decentralized applications using smart contracts. Algorand combines speed, security, and decentralization in one blockchain. The Algorand decentralized finance platform provides perfect scalability for users and developers. The network uses native crypto. You can send payments, create dApps, stake, and trade with Algorand (ALGO).

Lee Enterprises newsroom and editorial were not involved in the creation of this content.

Get local news delivered to your inbox!

Go here to read the rest:

All that you wanted to know about Algorand crypto - Tulsa World

Been playing (aka wasting time) with ChatGPT andPerplexity.aifor quite sometime and thought of what can it produce when asked whether newspapers should or should not spin up their own Mastodon instance. Here are the results from these two companies that use large language models (LLMs):

OpenAI's ChatGPT says:

"Mastodon, a decentralized social media platform, is gaining popularity as an alternative to larger social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook. As such, newspapers are considering whether they should spin up their own Mastodon instance. Here are the advantages and disadvantages of this approach:

Advantages:Increased control: By hosting their own Mastodon instance, newspapers have complete control over the content that is shared and the users that engage with the content.Audience engagement: Mastodon provides a more personalized way for newspapers to engage with their audience and build a stronger relationship with them.

Decentralization: By hosting their own instance, newspapers can contribute to Mastodon's decentralized nature and ensure that the platform remains open and accessible to all.Privacy: Mastodon is designed to prioritize privacy and data security, ensuring that users' data is protected and newspapers are not subject to privacy concerns.

Disadvantages:Limited audience: Mastodon still has a relatively small user base compared to larger social media platforms, which could limit the audience for newspapers that host their own instance.Cost: Running and maintaining a Mastodon instance can be expensive, especially for smaller newspapers with limited resources.Technical expertise: Hosting a Mastodon instance requires technical expertise and knowledge of the platform, which could be difficult and expensive for newspapers to obtain.Fragmentation: Mastodon's decentralized nature means that there are many different instances, each with their own set of rules and regulations. This could make it difficult for newspapers to reach a wide audience and could lead to a lack of consistency in the content that is shared.In conclusion, hosting a Mastodon instance provides increased control and audience engagement for newspapers, while contributing to the platform's decentralized nature and prioritization of privacy. However, it comes with a limited audience, high costs, technical expertise requirements, and fragmentation. Newspapers must carefully consider their goals and resources before deciding whether to host their own Mastodon instance or stick with more established social media platforms."

And here's whatPerplexity.AIsays:

"Mastodon is a decentralized social network that allows users to create their own instances. Newspapers can spin up their own Mastodon instance to have more control over their content and build a community around their brand. One of the main advantages of creating a Mastodon instance is that it allows newspapers to have complete editorial control over what stories are told and how they are presented. This can be especially important for newspapers that want to focus on niche topics or cater to specific audiences. Another advantage is that it allows newspapers to build a community of readers who are interested in their content and engage with them directly. However, creating a Mastodon instance requires technical expertise, and it can be difficult to attract users to a new instance. Additionally, Mastodon is still a relatively new platform, and most users are already part of established instances. Newspapers should carefully weigh the pros and cons before deciding whether or not to create their own Mastodon instance."

Note that I asked both to produce a concise version.

Are the results correct and accurate? Well, not quite. It basically got the decentralization, increased control over the content, and cost of running an instance (including technical expertise) correct (but you can pay for a managed hosting service for this). The others, well, just prove that LLMs are not intelligent-does not know where to pull data about how federation works, i.e., you don't need users to be on the same instance to interact with them. This means that there aren't that many articles written about federation and decentralization, enough for the LLMs to digest and update its model, ergo just like a parrot.

Newspaper companies, instead of paying to get verified, should consider having their own Mastodon (or Misskey or Calckey) instance, if and only if, they value complete editorial control of their content (and complete control of how they store their data) over other things popular social media companies, like Facebook and Twitter, provide.

Growing the number of readers should not be an issue, specially when you are sure that your posts are not being rate-limited by algorithms designed to push for more advertisements in favor of the social media company. Just how did their followers increase to start with? NO different on the federated universe, IMHO.

I'd say NOW is the time to seriously look into this and decide. Freedom of the press should not be dependent on some algorithm that maximizes profit for the platform. If newspaper companies treat Facebook, Twitter and Tiktok as distribution platforms (worse with algorithms that determine who to show their articles to), then why ignore the reach of the federated universe (Mastodon, Misskey, Calckey, Pleroma, Pixelfed, PeerTube, Micro.blog, WordPress, Flipboard, and soon, hopefully, Tumblr and Flickr, too), right?

Go here to see the original:

What do LLMs say about newspaper companies and Mastodon? - Manila Bulletin