Blockchain

[Richard Tracey]

What does everyone think of this - do you see it as a game changer for independent artists releasing their own music?

 

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/blockchain-disrupting-music-mycelia?utm_content=buffer5c442&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[Just1L]

I think I need a "for Dummies" book on how exactly it would help musicians. I understand the payment is bitcoin or other crypto currency. Still on the fence with that until I can use it to pay off my mortgage. Can I? Hell, I don't exactly know. I haven't been able to fully wrap my head around blockchain yet enough to where I can see how it would stop pirating on sites like YouTube, etc… as well as how it would stop misinformation, and the hate that comes with it, from spreading.

 

My initial thought is it's going to be another something heralded as awesome for 5-10 years until the next awesome thing comes along and on and on and on. A never ending cycle of change. Fun for some, not for everyone.

 

I do look forward to getting more into it and finding out more about it.

Edited January 23, 2018 by Just1L

[MonoStone]

Depends what you call 'independent artists'. For most 'idenpendent' unsigned artists it'll make little real difference... 

[Richard Tracey]

1 minute ago, MonoStone said:

Depends what you call 'independent artists'. For most 'idenpendent' unsigned artists it'll make little real difference... 

 

I think they feel that if you are able to get a following of some sort and can build on that - you, the artist, make the money, not some middle man or corporate entity. 

[Just1L]

6 minutes ago, Richard Tracey said:

make the money

 

And by money am I correct in thinking it's cryptocurrency at this point, not actual cash $$?

[Richard Tracey]

6 minutes ago, Just1L said:

 

And by money am I correct in thinking it's cryptocurrency at this point, not actual cash $$?

 

As far as I can this is how it works - you can cash out, but I don't know what the rate is like. It seems like a lot of unsigned artists are starting to use Musicoin recently and pushing it hard. Hannah Peel who is a known artist in the UK is championing it and it looking to set up her own Blockchain for musicians. She released a song in 2016 this way and it was a success for her, so she and a lot of others in the industry seem to think this is the way to go. The value of - say for example - Musicoin is going to go up and is already on the rise. If you are in at the beginning, then if the value goes like Bitcoin, you could end up with a lot more than you have just now. 

[MonoStone]

48 minutes ago, Richard Tracey said:

I think they feel that if you are able to get a following of some sort and can build on that - you, the artist, make the money, not some middle man or corporate entity. 

 

I actually find it hard to follow, being honest, but I gather this is less about selling music than it is about having data so that everyone involved in making the music gets paid and credited etc, maybe without a need for all the 'middle men'?

 

 

 

[Richard Tracey]

2 minutes ago, MonoStone said:

 

I actually find it hard to follow, being honest, but I gather this is less about selling music than it is about having data so that everyone involved in making the music gets paid and credited etc, maybe without a need for all the 'middle men'?

 

 

 

 

That is what I am taking from it. Looking at what people are saying, it will be fairer for the unsigned, independent artists who are being shafted.

 

Who knows how this is going to go, but there seems to be a few people jumping on early.

 

I mean who would have thought that we would have Bitcoin millionaires - who are actual millionaires because how much a bitcoin costs. If the cash out now, they would never have to work again and some of these people are really young - there was a teenager in America who looked like he hadn't managed to grow a 'tache yet.

[john]

Funnily enough I have been looking into how Songstuff could use blockchain tech for networking over the last few months. It has some posdibilities.

 

As for bitcoin, it certainly has possibilities. You can exchange bitcoin for regular currency, it’s very established. The general trend has been increasing value, but the exchange rate has been relatively volatile.

 

The value is in protecting songs and ensuring income... as said I am looking into it. Will report back soon.

[MonoStone]

18 minutes ago, Richard Tracey said:

 

That is what I am taking from it. Looking at what people are saying, it will be fairer for the unsigned, independent artists who are being shafted.

 

Who knows how this is going to go, but there seems to be a few people jumping on early.

 

I mean who would have thought that we would have Bitcoin millionaires - who are actual millionaires because how much a bitcoin costs. If the cash out now, they would never have to work again and some of these people are really young - there was a teenager in America who looked like he hadn't managed to grow a 'tache yet.

 

I also read this in an attempt to understand more...

http://myceliaformusic.org/2017/07/26/midem17-can-blockchain-really-music-industry/

 

When I read that article, I don't really see that this relates to bitcoins as income, maybe it does somewhere but from what I can understand (and there's so much hipster jargon/waffle it's hard to follow) it's all about giving artists full control and a fair system rather than the benefits of a cryptocurrency ?

 

The main difficulty for any artist is - reaching the point where it really matters how much control or what share you have   It won't be a game changer in terms of reaching that point anyway.

Edited January 23, 2018 by MonoStone

[john]

1 minute ago, MonoStone said:

 

I also read this in an attempt to understand more...

http://myceliaformusic.org/2017/07/26/midem17-can-blockchain-really-music-industry/

 

When I read that article, I don't really see that this relates to bitcoins as income, maybe it does somewhere but from what I can understand (and there's so much hipster jargon/waffle it's hard to follow) it's all about giving artists full control and a fair system rather than the benefits of a cryptocurrency ?

 

The main difficulty for any artist is - reaching the point where it really matters how much control or what share you have   It won't be a game changer in that department anyway.

 

Block chain was developed for bitcoin, I think that is why it is mention. It should be very easy to build in micro payments as part of the blockchain native currency.

[Richard Tracey]

35 minutes ago, MonoStone said:

 

I also read this in an attempt to understand more...

http://myceliaformusic.org/2017/07/26/midem17-can-blockchain-really-music-industry/

 

When I read that article, I don't really see that this relates to bitcoins as income, maybe it does somewhere but from what I can understand (and there's so much hipster jargon/waffle it's hard to follow) it's all about giving artists full control and a fair system rather than the benefits of a cryptocurrency ?

 

The main difficulty for any artist is - reaching the point where it really matters how much control or what share you have   It won't be a game changer in terms of reaching that point anyway.

 

‘That is the one Hannah Peel is developing.

[Richard Tracey]

32 minutes ago, john said:

 

Block chain was developed for bitcoin, I think that is why it is mention. It should be very easy to build in micro payments as part of the blockchain native currency.

 

‘I took from the article that Blockchain just allows you to build and develop the capability for micro-transactions whether that is via crypto-currency or normal currency. I think at the moment it is being used for crypto, as this appears to be what Musicoin is.

[Geraint]

TL;DR - I don't believe the advantages of "the blockchain" are relevant to us, and its disadvantages (inefficient, unstable) will only get worse.  I think what we're missing is a traditional non-profit.

 

Firstly, cost: I don't think there is a solution you can build with the blockchain or "smart contracts" which you can't build with ordinary accounting ledgers and traditional legal contracts, more cheaply and with more oversight.

 

In terms of payment, the transaction fees end up higher than PayPal (once it starts to get congested - see next paragraph).  The only advantages are anonymity (does anyone actually freak out that Spotify knows what music you like?) and decentralisation (you don't have to trust a third-party accountant, but you also have no customer service or regulatory body to call if something goes wrong).

 

Secondly, technology: as a software person with a background in maths and cryptography, I don't believe "the blockchain" is a scalable solution.  It is simply too inefficient (proof-of-work is ludicrous, but even proof-of-stake setups have problems) to be able to work effectively once things get big.

 

The principles behind a blockchain (or directed-acyclic-graph like IOTA, or whatever) have been around and in use for a while - what is new is tying them to a currency system, which people are supposed to invest in for its own sake.

 

Bitcoin is apparently a success - and certainly, some people have made a ton of money from it as an investment.  However, even in the midst of this Stripe stopped accepting Bitcoins as payment, and Microsoft and Steam aren't sure about it either.  Recently, a Bitcoin conference stopped letting you buy tickets with it because of speed and transaction fees.  Some other currencies look better now, but still they are driven by the idea that the currency is a good investment vehicle.

 

Thirdly, markets: There is one argument that I agree with: with smart contracts one can design a system that doesn't have a middleman (labels, iTunes, everything) trying to suck up the spare money.  People value music and are happy to pay for it, but there isn't a lot of surplus, and too many extra layers makes it not worth it for artists.

 

Well, you can design a system that allows "direct" payments, but not everyone will be equipped to set up and administrate that, and what then?  I think it will end up in the "non-traditional" section of CD Baby's list of outlets, at best.

 

Labels charge "duplication fees" for digital files, iTunes take 30% (!) because they can (Bandcamp takes 5% for roughly the same service, but still lose out because of convenience and breadth of catalogue - iTunes gets 30% because it's popular enough to demand it.)  I think the actual thing we want to disrupt there is... greed, basically.

 

Creating a technological solution with no middlemen will just grow new middlemen, or existing ones will adapt.  Plus, labels aren't completely parasitic and useless.  What I think we need is benign middlemen, such as a social enterprise or (even better) a non-profit.

Edited January 24, 2018 by Geraint

[Ray Ayuso]

Right now the blockchain is in the same place the internet was in the 90s. Bitcoin is a succesful experiment and just an application of the blockchain, though is not efficient, very resource intensive and volatile,  it will evolve and faster technology that does the same will replace it, such as hashgram. I think this kind of technology will disrupt all industries, including the music industry for good or bad in the coming years. Bitcoin is mostly speculation.

 

is good to keep an eye on where this is going

just my opinion

Ray