Blockchain is a useless technology

Blockchain, a way of implementing a distributed ledger (distributed record-keeping), is a novel technology with little real-world practicality.  The original Bitcoin white paper published back in October 31, 2008 spurred little interest in distributed ledgers.  The distributed ledger was ignored for years until Bitcoin started receiving mainstream attention and a few years had passed.

I simply couldn’t find much evidence that distributed ledgers are useful for any real-world applications (other than speculative asset bubbles).  Once you understand that blockchains are bad at solving real-world problems, then you will understand why Bitcoin will fail.  The blockchain imposes limitations that makes Bitcoin a bad version of something that has been tried in the past: e-gold (description here and Wired profile here).

A company’s stance on blockchain can also serve as a test of a company’s management.  In my view, companies pushing blockchain technology (e.g. IBM, Microsoft, Intel, Oracle) are disconnected from customers’ actual needs and have mediocre management.  Companies that don’t talk about blockchain (e.g. Facebook, Amazon, Google, Apple) are more likely to produce sensible technology that will work in the real world.

Advertisements

Data centers – Part 4 – The future of infrastructure?

I think that proprietary ecosystems like Amazon Web Services will continue to grow.  These ecosystems will be popular with small software developers because it saves a lot of time.  Larger developers will see less benefit from proprietary software because their problems tend to be more specialized and difficult.

The main benefit of pooled infrastructure for larger developers is higher server utilization.  Many of their workloads see fluctuating demand depending on the time of day, depending on the season, or depending on one-time events (e.g. ticketing companies will see a heavy server load when tickets for their most popular events first become available).  They should see their costs drop by taking advantage of the elasticity made possible by pooled infrastructure.

Data centers – Part 1 – Overview

In data centers, the most interesting areas currently are in:

1. Software.  In particular, Amazon has been a pioneer in creating value-added software that helps software companies quickly setup databases and servers and backup storage.  Google, Microsoft, and IBM/SoftLayer are doing somewhat similar things.  The problem is that the data center segments of these companies likely will not move the needle much.
2. IT services.  Rackspace in particular is doing very interesting things.

The least interesting areas are companies that are mainly involved in selling space in a building because that business is a commodity.  Those companies will not  make a lot of money and they will not lose a lot of money.  While I think a lot of the data center REITs are overvalued and are suckering institutional investors into overpaying for their stock, they are not compelling shorts because they aren’t losing money quickly.  As well, many (legitimate) data center companies have been taken over at large premiums by companies like Verizon and Cogeco Cable at valuations I would disagree with.

*Disclosure: No positions.

Intel: a cheap-ish growth stock?

Briefly, Intel may be a good investment due to:

1. Cheap.  The P/E is around 10.3.
2. In the long run, Intel will be able to consistently grow its revenues as we find more uses for computers (e.g. smartphones, tablets, cloud).  8% revenue growth will likely continue into the near future.
3. Its economic moat.  Its dominant market position lets it enjoy economies of scale in R&D and in manufacturing.  On the fabrication side, Intel is almost always a step ahead when it comes to process size and process technology.