Member Info for Daveavt

You're missing my point again, this isn't about the tech, this is about getting the whole world to agree to use the same tech. That's not like debit cards, or mp3 as they are still one of many ways to do the same thing. The point of blockchain, the end goal is complete automation, so it's more of a marketing exercise than tech lol

And don't come back with 'well every company will have to adopt or get left behind'. NO, what we are talking about is simply automation, we could have done that in the last 20 years if everyone agreed to use the exact same system, it's just no one could be bothered. It's a mammoth task that could take absolutely years to implement, with every Company in the world making sure their system works with every other company in the world, just in case one day they have to deal with them? The likelyhood of that happening? Zero. So once that link between a blockchain and non blockchain company has to happen, your whole automation and security has stopped in it's tracks. It reminds me of a quip about bank security, where they have gold stored in ultra secure banks, with 9 stage security logins, Iris recognition, temperature change monitoring to keep it ultra safe. And a guy asks 'how do you get the gold from one bank to another'....'oh we stick it in a van with glass windows and thin metal bodywork and drive it down public roads'...

I didn't say blockchain has no future, but it can be falsified as I just showed, so makes the 'the data must be correct' argument null and void, though it's ideal for the automation side....but again ONLY if EVERY company in the chain is on board. Say for instance eBay was tomorrow all blockchain, and your bank all blockchain, you want to sell a product and in the magical world of blockchain the product is ordered, customer notified etc etc, in the wonderful la la world the item is booked for delivery, and you should get money in the bank....unfortunately PayPal, the intermediate payment processor isn't using blockchain, neither is your courier, so your automation was stopped in it's tracks.

'The streaming service adopts it or has no future', not really. The streaming service still gets it's subscription money whether it takes an artist off or not. As you said, they are not selling tracks. And why do you think a normal database can't store this information accurately? Of course it can. What you're talking about is deception, where the company isn't disclosing the amount of sales. Well sorry, if a company wants to be deceptive on purpose, blockchain doesn't stop that, because if they wanted to they could run half the streams off a blockchain database, and the other half off of a centralized one. The blockchain is only as accurate as the data being fed into it, and if you're not feeding all the data into it, the point of it can be circumvented just like that. The end customer knows no difference, as he or she is not downloading a track, just paying a one off sub.

It's funny though. What you're describing is like back say 30 years ago, when people went from filing transactions and accounts on paper, to putting them on spreadsheets. And then from spreadsheets to accounting packages. Then from accounting packages to online databases. Now we want to just tweak that method of database storage. Those 3 things before had way more importance and gravity than the jump from centralized databases to non centralized. There is not one thing a blockchain can do that you can't do by traditional means, not one thing. All it has over it is that it can't be tampered with. That automation you spoke of, a coffee sale from an epos system, going straight to accounts, that all could be done now. You could even pay the supplier now for the bean of that coffee if you wanted...but you can't because for all this to work everyone needs to be using the same system. Blockchain or a normal database can do this but only if EVERYONE is using the exact same system. But then that will never happen because there are lots of things blockchain isn't very good at. End of the day, it's a evolutionary process, it will take a long long time, if ever, it may even be made redundant by a completely better system. This race to be the 'first' is a bit futile, it will be the company that will be the best, and no offence, when you have huge software companies worth billions with hundreds of staff developing on it, to think some tin pot aim company that turns over less than a market stall and has no software experience whatsoever is going to make a 'head start' is laughable.

No, you're missing the point, I'm not saying every company can't contest to blockchain if they wanted to, the point is they don't need to. ITunes and Google play have a monopoly, it's not like any artists are going to decide not to sell music on those platforms just because they get paid monthly instead of instantly. As I said, any artist could have sold music on their own websites for the part ten years, directly, and got paid instantly, but they don't, because the public doesn't want to buy off individual websites. You need to stop thinking of blockchain as new technology, it has advantages in some areas, but anything related to the general public, and end user, doesn't matter one bit. It also has a lot of drawbacks, removing the third party trust element, privacy issues, and actual speed of transactions.

And the crap about labels ripping people off? Well, maybe, they also offer a lot of assistance too. End of the day that isn't the real issue, as anyone in the world can upload music to iTunes or Google play, you do not have to be a label to do so. So the crap about only blockchain can give artists 'back their power' is nonsense, anyone can go labelless if they really wanted to, and on the two largest platforms. The thing is being signed to a label does all the promotional work for you. Just putting music on a website doesn't get you heard, you need promotion. Also in this day and age, hardly anyone actually needs to 'buy' music, everything as available to stream whenever you want, we have pretty much endless bandwidth, and can play tracks whenever we like at no cost.

Spotify is a streaming service, it can store streams for offline use, but that isn't the same as downloading a music file. End of the day, as I said, this is nothing to do with tech or how it's done, it's all to do with marketing and incentives for the public. The spotify model works because it's a subscription, so one time entering payment, and the user can listen to as much music as they like, iTunes and Google play are the most popular too for obvious reasons, integration, ease of use, and automated payment. Any other site, would have to be as easy, or why would the public use it. What is the incentive. The only incentive is to artists, but if no one is using the site, who cares if they get a better margin. This is why artists have never role directly on their websites, which is the easiest thing to do, no different to an online store selling shoes. Because the public want to buy music all in one place in the simplest way. If we went back 15 years to when we were all buying music on computers to burn to cd or stick in an mp3 player, then it's viable...but even then, what would make them use that site over all the others. Again, the public doesn't care about the tech running the site, or how much money an artist is making.

Doc, I first found this share because I'm in the music industry and signed to multiple labels. So I'll give you some simple education...which is actually nothing to do with the music industry. It doesn't matter what names you throw out, that's an argument from authority which means nothing here. As I just said, if you have an apple device, you cannot download music from anywhere else other than iTunes, fact. It doesn't matter how famous an artist you are lol, it can't be done. Also, why haven't all of these artists just sold their music directly on their own websites? You don't need blockchain to sell a bloody music file, you'd only need it to handle something if you were a music distribution site sending payments direct to artists. But as I said very clearly, the PUBLIC doesn't care if your site is running blockchain or not, the PUBLIC doesn't care if the artist is making more money, they public want the simplest way of downloading music, to any device, without having to through a payment sequence each time. . It's the same reason people prefer to buy off Amazon and eBay, and not from the same sellers websites. Because their payments are automated, and it's quick and easy. Any artist, even the most famous ones can put their music on this website, but you can't force the public to use it, they will use what they want to use.

Blimey, are you deramping, that's a competitor to what black cactus 'plans' to do. The thing is the idea is still antiquated, doesn't matter if it uses block chain or not. As I said before, people buy music primarily on phones, so this can never work on an apple device, as all media has to be bought through the apple store, there is no way of getting any music into in iPhone from any other means, and the general public doesn't give a crap if it's 'good for the artists', so in a nut shell, this is just another web based site trying to sell music, which is a Napster model and gone with the dinosaurs. 99 percent of music sales is iTunes, Google music, via YouTube, or if it's niche, things like beatport, and even they used to have an app and ditched it because they realised no one on iPhone could do it, and the general public don't like using external methods of payment, visa, debit cards etc, as with iTunes, Google play etc it's all automated to your phone contract account.

they don't own a bank, they haven't started one, it's yet another forward thinking statement, hence why the share price rose and plummeted into the 20s on the day, and once again, the holding company nsb holdings ehf that they are meant to be in partnership with is, dun dun dun...yet another shell company with absolutely no web presence, works out of a virtual office, created only 6 months ago, the same time as envoys transition change.

We? No, and black cactus don't own a bank. Read it very carefully. It's yet another forward thinking plan, yet another thing not 'actually happening'. They want to create a virtual bank in Iceland. Hence why it doesn't have a name. So that's now the milestone 30% deal not confirmed or actioned, the wow deal not confirmed or actioned, and plans to make a digital bank, not confirmed or actioned.

You didn't last long Tony.

What relevance is that? Black cactus aren't doing anything crpto related, their hardware got seized for non payment only 2 months after they took it on.

Oh that's more than 2, everyone at present is still working from home on computers lol

People wanted news of something happening, not just another director on the books.

It didn't go down well in the us, blgI share price dropped 17 percent on that news, closing to be another 8 percent down at the end of the day. People y

Tony Tony Tony, 'if msg was a dud, why would he put his money in here?' Tony, this guy has ALWAYS had money in here, and by milestones OWN ADMITTANCE IN THEIR LAST RNS, every thing they have tried hasn't worked out how they thought, and they have scrapped, and hence why the company has only turned over a MERE 22 GRAND in 2017. FACT. They could have shut up shop, sent one of their directors to work in McDonald's for a year and made more money than they have. FACT So ergo,this guy, by milestones admittance, has always been investing in a dud. FACT. This is why I don't care how much he is investing, why don't you look at how many people are NOT investing. Up until a couple of months ago, he has been the ONLY person with a significant investment to require a tr1. FACT. Most companies worth their salt have a selection of significant investors, FACT....now your comments, 'the end point is a multibagger, RAMPING, 'clue is nuog last year' - COMPLETELY unrelated company, how is that even relevant. So once again, post some FACTS.

Though you've mentioned Bournemouth too previously, so that's north and south. Southend and Wales next?

And while you're there, tell me a story about Derby, as that's twice you've mentioned it. As you seem to be now putting more effort researching something about Derby, than the company, no surprise there of course. Even though I criticize rampers talking endlessly about shares they are invested in, I've seen post so endlessly about everything but...