4 ms·
I think the difference is that Ascribe doesn't have a token, so payment doesn't take place on the platform. Ascribe is merely a registry & they are building tec
by cryptoqueen 9y ago
I think the difference is that Ascribe doesn't have a token, so payment doesn't take place on the platform. Ascribe is merely a registry & they are building tech that will scan the internet checking for unauthorized copies of work. I think the scanning ability is very powerful, but that's totally outside of blockchain! I think the value of KodakCoin is the payment mechanism, which in theory will be decentralized i.e. replace Paypal. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the benefits. Bottom line though, everyone knows Kodak and no one knows Ascribe, so I can see how Ascribe would be a good acquisition target for Kodak down the line!
Please challenge me!
- throwawayjava 9y ago> I think the difference is that Ascribe doesn't have a token, so payment doesn't take place on the platform. Who cares? More concretely, how many professional or semi-professional photographers care? > Bottom line though, everyone knows Kodak and no one knows Ascribe But Ascribe is building useful technology while Kodak throws around buzzwords.
- wibblewobble 9y agoAll ascribe does is add a time stamp to an image, really not that useful except for those with a naive understanding of copyright.