This exact same story has played out over and over again in Bitcoin. It goes like this: Rally - the price starts to rise and mania kicks in raising the price higher and higher. Peak - Bitcoin...
This exact same story has played out over and over again in Bitcoin. It goes like this:
Rally - the price starts to rise and mania kicks in raising the price higher and higher.
Peak - Bitcoin reaches and all time high about 10 to 20 times higher than the prebubble price.
Crash - it crashes to about half of the peak.
Vibrating doorstop - it fluctuates wildly looking for its new normal. As part of this it slides down to a third to a quarter of the peak.
Leveling off - it finds a new normal well below the peak but well above the old baseline. It becomes boring both price wise and news wise.
During the rally the bulls think the gains will last forever. During the crash the bears think the slide will last forever and declare Bitcoin dead.
And during both the rally and the crash, economists think that cryptocurrencies aren't stable enough to be... well... currencies. If you buy a digital coin today, and it's worth twice as much next...
During the rally the bulls think the gains will last forever. During the crash the bears think the slide will last forever and declare Bitcoin dead.
And during both the rally and the crash, economists think that cryptocurrencies aren't stable enough to be... well... currencies. If you buy a digital coin today, and it's worth twice as much next week, then half as much the week after, it's not really a good store of value nor a reliable means to purchase good or services.
Do people use cryptos for buying things anymore (honest question)? I remember when bitcoin came out and it seemed like a good medium of exchange for sites like silkroad. Now all I hear about...
Do people use cryptos for buying things anymore (honest question)? I remember when bitcoin came out and it seemed like a good medium of exchange for sites like silkroad. Now all I hear about cryptos are from an investment/bubble/crash perspective. Are they just the McMansions of currency, I mean not purchased for their supposed purpose but just as an investment tool?
It's difficult because (legal) vendors that once accepted Bitcoin have been moving away from it for the past year or more. Steam being a big one. Many of them had cited exorbitant miner fees as...
It's difficult because (legal) vendors that once accepted Bitcoin have been moving away from it for the past year or more. Steam being a big one. Many of them had cited exorbitant miner fees as the reason, which is no longer relevant if using updated Bitcoin with segwit. Bitcoin Cash also would have reduced fees, but I never saw large vendors accepting that as a payment method.
Maybe there are other unnamed issues beyond the miner fees. Legal compliance? Fraud? High infrastructure costs? Slow transactions?
Most vendors probably don't hold Bitcoin though, they could immediately exchange for fiat currency like USD. So Bitcoin's value is actually not that relevant in that case.
Most vendors probably don't hold Bitcoin though, they could immediately exchange for fiat currency like USD. So Bitcoin's value is actually not that relevant in that case.
A local coffee shop probably didn't implement their own Bitcoin payment processor system. They probably used one of the big ones like BitPay that exchanges to the desired fiat currency immediately...
A local coffee shop probably didn't implement their own Bitcoin payment processor system. They probably used one of the big ones like BitPay that exchanges to the desired fiat currency immediately after the transaction.
I used to use Bitcoin to pay for my seedbox, but that's it. Part of it is the miner fees (as talklittle said), but there is also the fact that the IRS is now serious about taxing BTC (smaller...
I used to use Bitcoin to pay for my seedbox, but that's it.
Part of it is the miner fees (as talklittle said), but there is also the fact that the IRS is now serious about taxing BTC (smaller stores that can't afford to retain lawyers don't want to risk getting slammed by the IRS), scam ICOs (like Bitconnect) have made cryptocurrencies as a whole less reputable, it's probably not used all that much, and there's uncertainty of the viability of cryptocurrencies as governments attempt to draft legislation around them (and blockchain technologies in general).
Transactions still also take too long to confirm - 10 seconds for a chip transaction might be annoying, but 10 minutes for Bitcoin is too long, as the value of what you sent might have risen or dropped by 20% by the time it becomes spendable by the recipient. Supposedly the Lightning network will drastically reduce confirmation times, but some have said it's less secure, others have said it's only going to be reduced by several minutes (which is still far from the 10 seconds or less chip transactions usually take), and I don't know enough about the internal workings of Lightning or Bitcoin to sort out the FUD. (Plus, we've been hearing about Lightning for years, and the release date keeps getting pushed out.)
Cryptocurrencies are better for speculation than being used as a substitute for fiat currency for now.
Edit: Grammar.
Edit 2: Ignoring all this, one thing that will prevent mass adoption of crypto is the lack of consumer protection. Say what you want about central banking, but if my bank account gets hacked and all my money is wired out to China, even if I don't call the bank and get it cancelled fast enough, I can usually get reimbursed. Likewise, credit & debit cards have fraud protection that ensure I won't have to pay for transactions I didn't make if my card gets skimmed (though debit cards can take an entire week due to lower fraud protections, you will eventually get your money back). If someone bruteforces my private key and steals my BTC, I'm SOL. If someone hacks the exchange I use, I have to cross my fingers and hope they have enough in reserves to reimburse their users, though many of the exchanges that have been hacked (or the owners just ran off with all the coins) have folded shortly after.
Sorta off-topic, but if chip transactions are taking 10 seconds, the merchant probably has dialup. If they had broadband internet at the store, the transaction should only take 2-3 seconds, and I...
Sorta off-topic, but if chip transactions are taking 10 seconds, the merchant probably has dialup. If they had broadband internet at the store, the transaction should only take 2-3 seconds, and I believe a fair amount of that time is the anti-bruteforce delay the chip uses in verifying the PIN. With tap-to-pay it doesn't need to verify the PIN, so transactions take ~0.5 to 2 seconds or so. I've never encountered "chip and signature" (honestly the existance of such a system is utterly baffling to me, but I digress), but I'm guessing that should be just as quick as tap.
For me, it's taken 10 seconds one time, I think. Most of the time when I get groceries, from the time I insert the card to the time it says approved is 5-7 seconds, while using Android Pay at the...
For me, it's taken 10 seconds one time, I think. Most of the time when I get groceries, from the time I insert the card to the time it says approved is 5-7 seconds, while using Android Pay at the same terminal will take 2-3 seconds to say approved (and this is for amounts that don't require me to enter my zip code).
Regarding chip and signature, it seems to be because less to remember = more sales. I agree, it is a dumb idea - a PIN might not be an impenetrable security force, but it does make criminals have to work slightly harder to commit fraud.
Yes and no. Like the regular Bitcoin protocol the Lightning protocol is solid, but wallets are vurnerable. Every Lightning wallet is by necessity a hot wallet with all of the hacking risk that...
...some have said it's less secure...
Yes and no. Like the regular Bitcoin protocol the Lightning protocol is solid, but wallets are vurnerable. Every Lightning wallet is by necessity a hot wallet with all of the hacking risk that goes along with that. There's no way to back up Lightning channels yet, so if your computer crashes you will lose money. There is a fix in the works that will completely solve that problem, but it will take time to implement and get adopted.
For now, don't put more money into Lightning than the amount of money you would lose sleep over if it fell out of your pocket.
...others have said it's only going to be reduced by several minutes...
Lightning transactions are instant. You do need an open channel, but that just takes a one time setup.
Plus, we've been hearing about Lightning for years, and the release date keeps getting pushed out.
There are several bars, cafes, gyms and co-working spaces that accept bitcoin and litecoin for payment, as well as at least 4 bitcoin ATMs that I know of that allow you to exchange cash for...
There are several bars, cafes, gyms and co-working spaces that accept bitcoin and litecoin for payment, as well as at least 4 bitcoin ATMs that I know of that allow you to exchange cash for bitcoin where I live. And a couple of these are very recent additions (places accepting not the ATMs). I assume it's more of a money grab (hoping people will pay with it and it will become more valuable) rather than representing any normalcy to using it, but it is still spreading as far as I can tell. Maybe that's still a side effect of the still recent explosion in value but many of them have been accepting, at least, bitcoin for the last 7 years.
I'm not convinced we've seen the last of the Bitcoin speculation bubble, but the future I fear for cryptocurrencies isn't a complete bust... It's a long, drawn-out cooldown. A Heat Death rather...
I'm not convinced we've seen the last of the Bitcoin speculation bubble, but the future I fear for cryptocurrencies isn't a complete bust... It's a long, drawn-out cooldown. A Heat Death rather than a Big Crunch.
I was pretty heavily into Linux in 2000, and I think there are a lot of parallels to draw with the "Linux on desktop" craze. Early in 2000, if you were on sites like Slashdot, you were CONVINCED that Linux's mass adoption on the desktop was just around the corner, you guys. All it needed was a good distro, or one positive article in the mainstream media. And if you only read tech sites, you were convinced it was a matter of time.
In some ways, as good a proposition as a free OS was, there were some tragic flaws that doomed the project. An over-reliance on function over usability, for instance, or a general disinterest in UX design by a programmer-oriented community. Whatever those flaws were, the point is, the flaws stayed in place no matter what, while the common criticisms leveled at, say, Microsoft, were kinda-sorta addressed in a way that they became a non-issue for the general public. (For instance, as much as Windows still has security issues, it's nowhere near the mess it was when Linux was claiming the security advantage.)
So, I think, there might be fatal flaws in blockchain technology. Processing time. The risk of fraud through social engineering or hacking of exchanges. The fact you can't call a central authority and revert a fraudulent charge. The energy cost. We like to think some future developers will solve all these, but what if they are flaws inherent to the technology?
The idea of Linux on desktop didn't die a violent death. In some ways, it's still around. But the hype slowly, slowly dwindled down until it became a non-issue. There was no clear moment when this happened, just the zeitgeist moving on to other tech crazes.
That's what I can envision for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies as a technology. We're told the blockchain will revolutionize everything, you guys, it's just a matter of time. And this adoption is a big reason that supports the very idea of investing: people invest because they believe that the hype of a useful, future tech is big enough to sustain investor growth, while the hardcores HODL because they dream of the day the blockchain finally reaches mass adoption.
But what if it doesn't, and we collectively just move on from it?
Just like Linux on the desktop, the blockchain will stick around, of that I have no doubt. I have no doubt, either, that some people will find a use for it. But it's entirely possible that cryptocurrencies as investment just keep cooling down, never coming back to previous heights, as the zeitgeist moves on.
I find it kinda ironic that bitcoin was created in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis as a way to get away from banks and governments manipulating the value of currencies through the fractional...
I find it kinda ironic that bitcoin was created in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis as a way to get away from banks and governments manipulating the value of currencies through the fractional reserve system, as well as the government bailing out banks to the tune of trillions because they engaged in irresponsible speculative trading.
And now here we are, ten years later, banks and investors are the ones saying bitcoin has no future, it will never be taken seriously by us, the big guys who control things, etc. It's no good as a currency because its price can't be manipulated, it makes for a bad investment, because that's the end-game of society, investing in things to make money by doing nothing.
It just seems bizarro-world that economists are the ones saying what bitcoin is, isn't, where it's going, and why, how you should invest in it and when, when ostensibly the entire system was designed to eliminate these people in the first place. Yes, it makes a bad investment because it was never designed to be one. Yes, it makes a bad currency, because everyone is treating it like an investment. Bah.
No. It's not good as a currency because its price can't be predicted. I've read articles about retail stores that started accepting Bitcoin to support the currency, but then had to stop accepting...
It's no good as a currency because its price can't be manipulated
No. It's not good as a currency because its price can't be predicted. I've read articles about retail stores that started accepting Bitcoin to support the currency, but then had to stop accepting it because it was bad for business. They'd receive 0.0001 Bitcoin today to pay for a cup of coffee they sold, but by next week, that 0.0001 Bitcoin was only worth half what it was when they got it; it wouldn't cover the costs of the cup of coffee they sold. Government-fiat currencies might fluctuate, but they generally don't change value by 50% within 6 months - and, if they do, it's a sign of a serious problem with that country's economy.
Bitcoin simply isn't viable as a medium of exchange because its value fluctuates so wildly. As you say, that might be because it's being used as an investment instead of a currency, but this kind of a self-reinforcing feedback cycle: because it's so unpredictable, it can't be used as a currency, so its only use is as an investment, which only makes it even more unpredictable, and less usable as a currency, and more valuable as an investment, and so on.
It can't possibly work as a currency because it's transaction speed is absurdly slow and uses an incredible amount of power. But that's irrelevant, as most people don't care about the ethos behind...
It can't possibly work as a currency because it's transaction speed is absurdly slow and uses an incredible amount of power. But that's irrelevant, as most people don't care about the ethos behind bitcoin, they just want to make money.
I read an article recently that said something like Bitcoin could never be an everyday currency because the electricity required to support that many Bitcoin transactions would be prohibitive.
and uses an incredible amount of power.
I read an article recently that said something like Bitcoin could never be an everyday currency because the electricity required to support that many Bitcoin transactions would be prohibitive.
Maybe you can help me understand something. I don't know much about investing or economics but I remember something about bitcoin being allowed (or something) for "futures" trading. And at the...
Maybe you can help me understand something. I don't know much about investing or economics but I remember something about bitcoin being allowed (or something) for "futures" trading. And at the time that seemed to mean it was being given some legitimacy. What I'm seeing seems to suggest that should have lent to more stability for prices. Can you or maybe someone else in this thread offer an ELI5 of what "futures" are and why that was important to bitcoin?
Not sure if I'm qualified to answer that, but futures are basically a contract to buy something in the future at a specific price, basically gambling on the fact that'll be cheaper than market...
Not sure if I'm qualified to answer that, but futures are basically a contract to buy something in the future at a specific price, basically gambling on the fact that'll be cheaper than market price at the time.
Blockchains and bitcoin can be used for things like this. "Smart contracts" are possible, which, I'm foggy on the details, but enables things like future transactions, transactions that are dependent on some external force, etc.
There's some examples I found here that go into the kinds of things you can set up with blockchain-based contracts. The technical details are a bit over my head though, so I can't be much help in explaining how it works.
What interests me is cryptocurrencies with real world applications, like the filestorage ones. Instead of just wasting electricity there's a service and demand entwined into it, at least then it's...
What interests me is cryptocurrencies with real world applications, like the filestorage ones. Instead of just wasting electricity there's a service and demand entwined into it, at least then it's serving a purpose.
This exact same story has played out over and over again in Bitcoin. It goes like this:
Rally - the price starts to rise and mania kicks in raising the price higher and higher.
Peak - Bitcoin reaches and all time high about 10 to 20 times higher than the prebubble price.
Crash - it crashes to about half of the peak.
Vibrating doorstop - it fluctuates wildly looking for its new normal. As part of this it slides down to a third to a quarter of the peak.
Leveling off - it finds a new normal well below the peak but well above the old baseline. It becomes boring both price wise and news wise.
During the rally the bulls think the gains will last forever. During the crash the bears think the slide will last forever and declare Bitcoin dead.
And during both the rally and the crash, economists think that cryptocurrencies aren't stable enough to be... well... currencies. If you buy a digital coin today, and it's worth twice as much next week, then half as much the week after, it's not really a good store of value nor a reliable means to purchase good or services.
Do people use cryptos for buying things anymore (honest question)? I remember when bitcoin came out and it seemed like a good medium of exchange for sites like silkroad. Now all I hear about cryptos are from an investment/bubble/crash perspective. Are they just the McMansions of currency, I mean not purchased for their supposed purpose but just as an investment tool?
It's difficult because (legal) vendors that once accepted Bitcoin have been moving away from it for the past year or more. Steam being a big one. Many of them had cited exorbitant miner fees as the reason, which is no longer relevant if using updated Bitcoin with segwit. Bitcoin Cash also would have reduced fees, but I never saw large vendors accepting that as a payment method.
Maybe there are other unnamed issues beyond the miner fees. Legal compliance? Fraud? High infrastructure costs? Slow transactions?
The unpredictability of the value of a Bitcoin?
Most vendors probably don't hold Bitcoin though, they could immediately exchange for fiat currency like USD. So Bitcoin's value is actually not that relevant in that case.
Just because a local coffee shop could immediately exchange Bitcoin for AUD, that doesn't mean they did.
A local coffee shop probably didn't implement their own Bitcoin payment processor system. They probably used one of the big ones like BitPay that exchanges to the desired fiat currency immediately after the transaction.
I used to use Bitcoin to pay for my seedbox, but that's it.
Part of it is the miner fees (as talklittle said), but there is also the fact that the IRS is now serious about taxing BTC (smaller stores that can't afford to retain lawyers don't want to risk getting slammed by the IRS), scam ICOs (like Bitconnect) have made cryptocurrencies as a whole less reputable, it's probably not used all that much, and there's uncertainty of the viability of cryptocurrencies as governments attempt to draft legislation around them (and blockchain technologies in general).
Transactions still also take too long to confirm - 10 seconds for a chip transaction might be annoying, but 10 minutes for Bitcoin is too long, as the value of what you sent might have risen or dropped by 20% by the time it becomes spendable by the recipient. Supposedly the Lightning network will drastically reduce confirmation times, but some have said it's less secure, others have said it's only going to be reduced by several minutes (which is still far from the 10 seconds or less chip transactions usually take), and I don't know enough about the internal workings of Lightning or Bitcoin to sort out the FUD. (Plus, we've been hearing about Lightning for years, and the release date keeps getting pushed out.)
Cryptocurrencies are better for speculation than being used as a substitute for fiat currency for now.
Edit: Grammar.
Edit 2: Ignoring all this, one thing that will prevent mass adoption of crypto is the lack of consumer protection. Say what you want about central banking, but if my bank account gets hacked and all my money is wired out to China, even if I don't call the bank and get it cancelled fast enough, I can usually get reimbursed. Likewise, credit & debit cards have fraud protection that ensure I won't have to pay for transactions I didn't make if my card gets skimmed (though debit cards can take an entire week due to lower fraud protections, you will eventually get your money back). If someone bruteforces my private key and steals my BTC, I'm SOL. If someone hacks the exchange I use, I have to cross my fingers and hope they have enough in reserves to reimburse their users, though many of the exchanges that have been hacked (or the owners just ran off with all the coins) have folded shortly after.
Sorta off-topic, but if chip transactions are taking 10 seconds, the merchant probably has dialup. If they had broadband internet at the store, the transaction should only take 2-3 seconds, and I believe a fair amount of that time is the anti-bruteforce delay the chip uses in verifying the PIN. With tap-to-pay it doesn't need to verify the PIN, so transactions take ~0.5 to 2 seconds or so. I've never encountered "chip and signature" (honestly the existance of such a system is utterly baffling to me, but I digress), but I'm guessing that should be just as quick as tap.
For me, it's taken 10 seconds one time, I think. Most of the time when I get groceries, from the time I insert the card to the time it says approved is 5-7 seconds, while using Android Pay at the same terminal will take 2-3 seconds to say approved (and this is for amounts that don't require me to enter my zip code).
Regarding chip and signature, it seems to be because less to remember = more sales. I agree, it is a dumb idea - a PIN might not be an impenetrable security force, but it does make criminals have to work slightly harder to commit fraud.
Yes and no. Like the regular Bitcoin protocol the Lightning protocol is solid, but wallets are vurnerable. Every Lightning wallet is by necessity a hot wallet with all of the hacking risk that goes along with that. There's no way to back up Lightning channels yet, so if your computer crashes you will lose money. There is a fix in the works that will completely solve that problem, but it will take time to implement and get adopted.
For now, don't put more money into Lightning than the amount of money you would lose sleep over if it fell out of your pocket.
Lightning transactions are instant. You do need an open channel, but that just takes a one time setup.
The developers released Lightning for mainnet months ago. It is in active use. There are a handful of merchants selling real products. There are more Lightning nodes than Bitcoin Cash nodes.
There are several bars, cafes, gyms and co-working spaces that accept bitcoin and litecoin for payment, as well as at least 4 bitcoin ATMs that I know of that allow you to exchange cash for bitcoin where I live. And a couple of these are very recent additions (places accepting not the ATMs). I assume it's more of a money grab (hoping people will pay with it and it will become more valuable) rather than representing any normalcy to using it, but it is still spreading as far as I can tell. Maybe that's still a side effect of the still recent explosion in value but many of them have been accepting, at least, bitcoin for the last 7 years.
It still is. I know because.
I'm not convinced we've seen the last of the Bitcoin speculation bubble, but the future I fear for cryptocurrencies isn't a complete bust... It's a long, drawn-out cooldown. A Heat Death rather than a Big Crunch.
I was pretty heavily into Linux in 2000, and I think there are a lot of parallels to draw with the "Linux on desktop" craze. Early in 2000, if you were on sites like Slashdot, you were CONVINCED that Linux's mass adoption on the desktop was just around the corner, you guys. All it needed was a good distro, or one positive article in the mainstream media. And if you only read tech sites, you were convinced it was a matter of time.
In some ways, as good a proposition as a free OS was, there were some tragic flaws that doomed the project. An over-reliance on function over usability, for instance, or a general disinterest in UX design by a programmer-oriented community. Whatever those flaws were, the point is, the flaws stayed in place no matter what, while the common criticisms leveled at, say, Microsoft, were kinda-sorta addressed in a way that they became a non-issue for the general public. (For instance, as much as Windows still has security issues, it's nowhere near the mess it was when Linux was claiming the security advantage.)
So, I think, there might be fatal flaws in blockchain technology. Processing time. The risk of fraud through social engineering or hacking of exchanges. The fact you can't call a central authority and revert a fraudulent charge. The energy cost. We like to think some future developers will solve all these, but what if they are flaws inherent to the technology?
The idea of Linux on desktop didn't die a violent death. In some ways, it's still around. But the hype slowly, slowly dwindled down until it became a non-issue. There was no clear moment when this happened, just the zeitgeist moving on to other tech crazes.
That's what I can envision for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies as a technology. We're told the blockchain will revolutionize everything, you guys, it's just a matter of time. And this adoption is a big reason that supports the very idea of investing: people invest because they believe that the hype of a useful, future tech is big enough to sustain investor growth, while the hardcores HODL because they dream of the day the blockchain finally reaches mass adoption.
But what if it doesn't, and we collectively just move on from it?
Just like Linux on the desktop, the blockchain will stick around, of that I have no doubt. I have no doubt, either, that some people will find a use for it. But it's entirely possible that cryptocurrencies as investment just keep cooling down, never coming back to previous heights, as the zeitgeist moves on.
I find it kinda ironic that bitcoin was created in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis as a way to get away from banks and governments manipulating the value of currencies through the fractional reserve system, as well as the government bailing out banks to the tune of trillions because they engaged in irresponsible speculative trading.
And now here we are, ten years later, banks and investors are the ones saying bitcoin has no future, it will never be taken seriously by us, the big guys who control things, etc. It's no good as a currency because its price can't be manipulated, it makes for a bad investment, because that's the end-game of society, investing in things to make money by doing nothing.
It just seems bizarro-world that economists are the ones saying what bitcoin is, isn't, where it's going, and why, how you should invest in it and when, when ostensibly the entire system was designed to eliminate these people in the first place. Yes, it makes a bad investment because it was never designed to be one. Yes, it makes a bad currency, because everyone is treating it like an investment. Bah.
No. It's not good as a currency because its price can't be predicted. I've read articles about retail stores that started accepting Bitcoin to support the currency, but then had to stop accepting it because it was bad for business. They'd receive 0.0001 Bitcoin today to pay for a cup of coffee they sold, but by next week, that 0.0001 Bitcoin was only worth half what it was when they got it; it wouldn't cover the costs of the cup of coffee they sold. Government-fiat currencies might fluctuate, but they generally don't change value by 50% within 6 months - and, if they do, it's a sign of a serious problem with that country's economy.
Bitcoin simply isn't viable as a medium of exchange because its value fluctuates so wildly. As you say, that might be because it's being used as an investment instead of a currency, but this kind of a self-reinforcing feedback cycle: because it's so unpredictable, it can't be used as a currency, so its only use is as an investment, which only makes it even more unpredictable, and less usable as a currency, and more valuable as an investment, and so on.
It can't possibly work as a currency because it's transaction speed is absurdly slow and uses an incredible amount of power. But that's irrelevant, as most people don't care about the ethos behind bitcoin, they just want to make money.
I read an article recently that said something like Bitcoin could never be an everyday currency because the electricity required to support that many Bitcoin transactions would be prohibitive.
Lol the only transactions in crypto are people manipulating the price. There's no use for it.
Maybe you can help me understand something. I don't know much about investing or economics but I remember something about bitcoin being allowed (or something) for "futures" trading. And at the time that seemed to mean it was being given some legitimacy. What I'm seeing seems to suggest that should have lent to more stability for prices. Can you or maybe someone else in this thread offer an ELI5 of what "futures" are and why that was important to bitcoin?
Not sure if I'm qualified to answer that, but futures are basically a contract to buy something in the future at a specific price, basically gambling on the fact that'll be cheaper than market price at the time.
Blockchains and bitcoin can be used for things like this. "Smart contracts" are possible, which, I'm foggy on the details, but enables things like future transactions, transactions that are dependent on some external force, etc.
There's some examples I found here that go into the kinds of things you can set up with blockchain-based contracts. The technical details are a bit over my head though, so I can't be much help in explaining how it works.
What interests me is cryptocurrencies with real world applications, like the filestorage ones. Instead of just wasting electricity there's a service and demand entwined into it, at least then it's serving a purpose.