🖇 Articles

In recent discussions about blockchain technology, there’s been a growing emphasis on its decentralized nature, often hailed as a panacea for various problems. However, a critical examination reveals a fundamental oversight in this perception, particularly concerning popular blockchains like Bitcoin and Ethereum. The central issue stems from the fact that these blockchains are, paradoxically, centralized in a crucial aspect: they operate as singular entities.

In today’s fast-paced world, freelancers and small businesses face the constant challenge of managing multiple projects, tasks, and client interactions. The key to success in this competitive landscape lies in maximizing productivity and streamlining workflows. One powerful way to achieve this is by leveraging the dynamic duo of Obsidian and Markdown. In this article, we’ll dive deeper into how these two tools can revolutionize the way freelancers and small businesses operate.

Introduction: Why Markdown Matters

I have recently started playing around with obsidian for my personal knowledge-base and love it. Not only does it

• support markdown for note taking
• it also allows to build PDFs using pandoc
• let’s you create charts using mermaid
• is highly customizable with plugins and CSS Among other things.

This article shows how we make use of environment variables and GPG to easily switch between credentials for various deployments. In our particular case, we have various Hashicorp clusters (nomad, consul, vault, …) deployed and need to be able to switch between them conveniently and securly.

A decentralized autonomous company, as the name implies, should mimic the behavior of a company in most (if not all) regards. This implies that a blockchain that implements a DAC comes with a few components among which are:

Let’s assume for a moment one of my clients approached me and asked for a “fair blockchain launch”, how would I do that? What needs to be considered? Where are the technical, legal, social challenges? What does it even mean?

In this short but concise article, I would like to give food for thought on smart contracting platforms that come with a Turing-complete scripting language.

Recently, we’ve marked a few of our branches in a project as protected which results in local changes to the branch not being push-able to the remote branch.

In recent months, we have witnesses some confusion in the crypto currency community about what atomic swaps can offer and why they are not necessarily in-line with common understandings of a sidechain. We here want to clarify the terms and ensure the reader can distinguish these despite confusing marketing in the public.

Apparently, everyone expects fees on the blockchain in order to prevent spamming or even for sake of some economical aspect of the chain. If it wasn’t for the transaction fees, the blockchain could be cluttered with worthless transactions making legit transfers impossible or expensive. But, what would be the benefits of having free transactions, what the the drawbacks, and can there be economics that make sense for a blockchain?

Recently, I had a great conversation with Nathan Hourt, a brilliant backend developer that I love working with. We are on the same wave length. So it shouldn’t surprise you that we came to similar conclusions on an item that is often presented misleadingly in the public: The different aspects of smart contracts, Turing completeness and scriptability.

Whenever people start talking about blockchain they often imply crypto currencies. However, a blockchain itself doesn’t require any token and still be a blockchain. The mere requirement for being public and permission-less, however makes a token (of some value) a requirement.

Today, after a long process of decision making, I came to the conclusion that it would be beneficial to start some sort of “blog” where I can aggregate technical thoughts, discoveries.