Netmarble Games IPO raises $2.3bn
▻http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-04-21-netmarble-games-ipo-raises-USD2-3bn
Second-biggest share sale in South Korea, thanks partly to the success of high-end #Mobile title Lineage II: Revolution
-
-
Bitcoin May Be Failing, But The Technology Behind It Will Live On
▻http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2016/05/21/bitcoin-may-be-failing-but-the-technology-behind-it-will-live-on
The reasons for Bitcoin’s failure are many, including poor governance, a lack of technological infrastructure and infighting within its community, [...] the fact that sovereign governments have the power to tax in their own currencies always made a Bitcoin takeover unlikely.
Still, as Don and Alex Tapscott explain in their new book, The Blockchain Revolution, the technology behind Bitcoin may indeed be revolutionary. In fact, despite Bitcoin’s collapse there are already thousands of entrepreneurs and investors betting on blockchain technology to reimagine transactions of all types. It’s still early days, but the potential is undeniable.
[...]
The Internet has helped to decentralize many important functions, but in many ways it has also eroded trust.
That, in a nutshell, is the role that blockchains, in the form of a trust protocol, can play in the years to come.
-
The resolution of the Bitcoin experiment — Mike Hearn (14 janvier)
▻https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7Why has the capacity limit not been raised? Because the block chain is controlled by Chinese miners, just two of whom control more than 50% of the hash power. At a recent conference over 95% of hashing power was controlled by a handful of guys sitting on a single stage. The miners are not allowing the block chain to grow.
Cet article semble être la source pour dire “Bitcoin is failing”.
-
et l’article follow-up à celui ci-dessus :
▻https://medium.com/@octskyward/a-small-followup-aa399a83acbbI got a lot of feedback on my last article, both positive and negative. Most of the negative feedback was in the form of conspiracy theories about me, rather than addressing the issues raised. That’s disappointing. Here are a couple that seemed more popular than the rest.
[...]
So to be redundantly clear: I wrote my article because I knew the story in the NYT was coming (and had told my colleagues about it) but wasn’t sure what it’d say, so I wanted a chance to put things in my own words. I wasn’t asked to write, or paid to, nor can I financially benefit from doing so in any way. The timing was chosen by the NYT.
-
