This page serves as a place to gather personal thoughts, ideas about Blockchain-related topics. Thoughts are my own.
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.