Blockchain & the future of affiliate marketing (not about the price!)

**BeckyCA** · 18 February 2021, 7:14 am

Hi GPWAers! As some of you may already know, the owner of my company (Calvin Ayre) is all-in with BitcoinSV blockchain and is confident the technology is going to transform the iGaming industry in so many ways for the better...and this has nothing to do with BTC's price 😁

I'm trying to get some conversations started amongst the iGaming community- including affiliates- around the potential of blockchain tech in this space. I wanted to share with you thought-provoking piece re: using blockchain to improve affiliate tracking & payouts, removing the possibility of any fraudulent behavior, helping with regulatory challenges, etc. I would love, love, love feedback from the GPWA community on it:

Blockchain and the future of iGaming affiliates

This is going to be a big focus of mine this year, so your input- positive or negative - would simply be amazing. Thank you in advance for your time!

**TheGooner** · 18 February 2021, 4:12 pm

OK - the article is slogan speak and most of it is chained phrases that make no sense.

1/ BSV is NOT Bitcoin - it's a b@st@rd fork that almost no-one uses - that has as much as 40% of it's coin as orphans (never used - never moved) and is widely treated with distrust in the crypto community not least because of it's association with wannabe Satoshi claimant Craig Wright. Exchanges are dropping BSV as Wright continues to rant and rave and threaten legal suits against many in this space. the most recent as Aussie exchange Independent Reserve.

2/ The blocks are 20% full and if you look inside you see that 99% of them are for junk transactions of less an 1 cent. The conclusion is that BSV is just not used, and most of the traffic that is there is fluff.

3/ The article seems to be implying that player data will be written to the BSV blockchain "as it happens" and affiliates can "track individuals spend" on the blockchain at their leisure. As empty as the blockchain is I am not sure that it can withstand that level of transactional detail - or that sharing private data on a public blockchain is a great idea.

4/ The article keeps trying to assign the bitcoin moniker to BSV. It's not and never will be. The continuation of this theme will continue to provide a large negative influence on any scheme using BSV.

5/ BTC is BTC and it's worth $50K and people want to be paid in it. BSV? It's just not used. Worth a fraction and it's difficult to exchange into fiat.

-----------------------------------------

In summary - I'm don't think that a public blockchain is the place for an enterprise operation (let alone many enterprises as suggested in the article) to record micro transactions - and I also don't think that choosing BSV will appeal to current crypto adoptors as it's a chain with a negative history and acrimonious people.

**PROFRBcom** · 18 February 2021, 4:48 pm

I like the idea of immutable and up to the minute data that can not be tampered with. But I have concerns.

Q: If we could see all of our affiliate data on the blockchain, couldn't everyone else see that also? And if so, wouldn't that subject affiliates to having their best performing pages known, deconstructed, and data mined to hell and back?

**Sherlock** · 18 February 2021, 5:31 pm

Originally Posted by PROFRBcom

Q: If we could see all of our affiliate data on the blockchain, couldn't everyone else see that also? And if so, wouldn't that subject affiliates to having their best performing pages known, deconstructed, and data mined to hell and back?

No, ofc. That is the point of cryptography that only those who have to see the data have access. In short the frontend application of blockchain affiliate software would be the same as what we see now and 3 party would see just something encrypted.

------------------------------------

The idea of having affiliate software was already discussed here and I think at some future it will be done. But the project is so large that maybe someone like Google will do it and provide it or something like that.

As much as is CSW ridiculous, whole BSV project weird and coingeek a propaganda of CA, a bit worse than average journalism, the article has a point.

BSV might be a centralised shitcoin, but for affiliate software no one needs security of BTC. It is certain that no affiliate software can run on BTC or ETH as it is now. BTC will have Taproot later this year, until then no smartcontracts and ETH has so high fees that it would be a suicide for affiliate industry to use it.

There is some consistency with bitcoin big blockers, they wanted the blocks for applications like this and this is how BCH forked. And BSV was forked from BCH, because even the BCH blocks were too small. If I am not mistaken BSV is experimenting with variable blocks, so to think in terms that blocks are 20% full is a bit misleading (max block is like 2000MB by BSV). Also the spam - yes the transactions are not legit txs, it is just testing if I have to be a devil's advocate. Many other coins - or all other coins than BTC and ETH have only spam in transactions; in IOTA in fact the spam is helping the network.

So the BSV forkers are consistent in the way that they needed the "bitcoin" with large blocks for applications like this proposed one.

The problem is different: for affiliate software that has to work as we need, the "bitcoin" platform or the blockchain itself might not be suitable. Since we speak about BSV: The blocks are mined each 10 minutes, which might be too much and even 2GB blocks might not be enough to store all clicks, impressions, revenue, bets, wagers etc etc. BSV is on the other scale than BTC, more centralised and with much more capacity, but even that capacity is maybe not big enough. Please take this with 2 grains of salt, it is just my thinking. Maybe there can be a solution that might omit some info or make it more dense.

In short I think some other solution than on blockchain has to be chosen. Either some layer 2 on the top of blockchain has to be used or non-blockchain solution like DLT/IOT.

----------------------------------------

Then I have one more note as I am constantly thinking about the decentralised affiliate software: I think in the end it will come, but there will be a big cons and pros.

The pros are clear: the smartcontract will/would pay automatically both players and our revenueshare/CPA whatever, so there is no space for us being robbed. However there is a space for all kinds of frauds from us or even from bettors. So the fully automated system can also kill affiliate industry. Imagine some big affiliate fraud that was never heard of. Something like a guy who can steal all DNS and get traffic from all websites or something like that. If it happens today, the affiliate programs would refuse to pay him (most of them). If the smartcontract is paying them, all is automatic.

So even if there is a blockchain solution, that will be need of some oracle or human input. That human input will however into big extent invalidate the indifference of smart contract. At least everything would be transparent then: there would be clearly visible automatic payments and then we would see all human action, e.g. that we were not paid for this, this and this and we would be able to raise questions.

**PROFRBcom** · 18 February 2021, 5:40 pm

OK, so, essentially, lets just track the data on the immutable blockchain, and pay manually via humans. So all data is transparent and I can have back all the big players that have been "accidentally" detagged over the years.

**Sherlock** · 18 February 2021, 5:52 pm

Yes that is the biggest advantage & problem, because not many affiliate programs would even want to have this setup. They like to be in control and not to explain all the "manual adjustments" they are doing.

I am sure that 99% of those manual adjustments are legit btw. The problem is the 1% (detagging the whales etc). If they have to explain everything... well... times should change.

If I understand or imagine it correctly it has to be - at least later - one system. All data not just affiliates, but also players, also grading the bets via oracles, has to be together. Different people with different roles would have different kind of access to data (bettors, casino/book employees, affiliate managers, CEO, affiliates, media partners...). It looks cool on paper, maybe too cool, like a hipster from SF. Maybe in 10 years it might work. But most likely not on BSV, although BSV is still more suitable than recent code of ETH and BTC. So no wonder BSV "owners" come with this narrative, because they must come with some theoretical use case at least now. It is clearly seen the article is desperate, because even I write here more about the idea and they do not plan anything (sadly!). CA could work on it. But I do not blame him for hiking with some girls in Greece (which is what I saw on his twitter few months ago). Some fresh blood has to do it.

**BeckyCA** · 20 February 2021, 8:21 am

Originally Posted by PROFRBcom

I like the idea of immutable and up to the minute data that can not be tampered with. But I have concerns.

Q: If we could see all of our affiliate data on the blockchain, couldn't everyone else see that also? And if so, wouldn't that subject affiliates to having their best performing pages known, deconstructed, and data mined to hell and back?

Great Q- I will get a detailed answer on why this type of thing would not be able to happen...as Sherlock states above, there are ways to allow data to only be seen by particular parties.

**BeckyCA** · 20 February 2021, 8:38 am

Sherlock, great points- thank you so much for sharing!

Clearly I represent a company that is 100% all-in BSV & I'm just getting my feet wet with understanding the technicalities, but there are a few things I can say right now- the purpose of this article was to get people talking, its not a sales pitch and no one "owns" BSV - we want to know what the affiliate community thinks and knows of blockchain tech in general right now, what their pain points are, what they need & want in general from the operators that they work with. Its just a spring board for discussion. For sure all of the ideas discussed in the article will take a long time to come to fruition, but these solutions are coming and totally possible with BSV! Also, I'd love to point out that BSV can absolutely, 10000000% handle all of these transactions- this is exactly what the goal is- enterprise-level solutions, which of course requires scaling to the moon! Check out the details of the upcoming Teranode implementation- its honestly so exciting.

**tufty** · 20 February 2021, 11:46 am

Originally Posted by TheGooner

. . . is widely treated with distrust in the crypto community not least because of it's association with wannabe Satoshi claimant Craig Wright. Exchanges are dropping BSV as Wright continues to rant and rave

Irrespective of the technical aspects, this is relevant. The fact there are some seemingly deluded (to use a euphemism) participants is a big turn off. If it isn't seen to be properly decentralised then the integrity of participants counts for plenty. The constant bleating cry of "I'm the real Bitcoin" and "I'm the real Satoshi" is a pathetic sight. Next stop the asylum.

I wouldn't ride in a train designed by Ronnie Biggs.

**BeckyCA** · 20 February 2021, 1:15 pm

There is a lot of "noise" surrounding Bitcoin, that is for sure!! If I could ask those reading this thread to please try to put aside opinions of Satoshi related issues for the moment and instead focus on the technology we have at our fingertips now (& in the near future), that would be amazing! Very interested in hearing your thoughts on this. Thank you, thank you!

**PROFRBcom** · 21 February 2021, 12:17 pm

Originally Posted by BeckyCA

There is a lot of "noise" surrounding Bitcoin, that is for sure!! If I could ask those reading this thread to please try to put aside opinions of Satoshi related issues for the moment and instead focus on the technology we have at our fingertips now (& in the near future), that would be amazing! Very interested in hearing your thoughts on this. Thank you, thank you!

I think they are simply trying to say that fewer people are even willing to investigate the technology, because of the Craig Wright = Satoshi and BSV is the real Bitcoin rhetoric and associated drama. It makes people distrustful and less willing to even consider BSV.

**Michael Martinez** · 21 February 2021, 12:53 pm

Blockchain is the worst-designed, slowest, least-efficient database structure in the history of computing. It might serve a niche industry like online gambling, especially if the blockchain is managed by a centralized network.

The gteatest problem with open blockchains like Bitcoin is that they are huge and expensive just to store. The electrical requirements for processing new transactions increase every month. Bitcoin alone now uses more electricity than most of the countries in the world.

As for Bitcoin itself, millions of Bitcoin have been lost. Millions more will be lost. If the lost Bitcoin can't be replaced then they'll have to be subdivided again and again and again. Eventually, people will find their wallets and transaction systems cannot subdivide the Bitcoins further.

The technology is unsustainable. It will eventually collapse under its own weight. It's only successful now because people keep pumping money into the ecosystem. When the costs of performing transactions and maintaining the blockchain (by all the miners) exceed the capabilities of the system, people will start to abandon it. And as it's abandoned, money will leave the system.

And as with stock markets, every shock to the trading system will drain value from it as "paper Bitcoin" (so to speak) vanishes due to panic selling.

There are faster, more efficient, less expensive database systems. Blockchain can't compete with them in terms of performance.

As far as security goes, public blockchains do prevent direct fraud in the ledger system. But there isn't much privacy when everyone can see the transactions and trace them back to wallets.

The technology may be good for another 10-15 years. After that, people will have moved on to something else.

**Sherlock** · 21 February 2021, 1:17 pm

Millions of bitcoins will not be lost again. Millions of bitcoins were lost, when the price was much lower. One million of BTC is now 58 billion USD - people usually secure tens of billions better than a password for an email.

What will be lost is roughly the same USD equivalent that was lost in the past and maybe not even that, because the wallets and security is much better than 10 years ago and people are better educated.

There are faster, more efficient, less expensive database systems.

Yes, all of them. Bitcoin is not a database, that is exactly why it is successful. There were guys who were running fast, efficient and cheap database called for example e-gold for example and they sit in the jail, because USA does not want competition. Therefore we need this slow, non-efficient and fkng costly non-database to store value. That is the whole point of it.

The value is not the tech behind it. The value of bitcoin is the trust and the need of having the decentralised money.

But there isn't much privacy when everyone can see the transactions and trace them back to wallets.

There is much more privacy still than by any centralised system, where we can consider doxxed ourselves upfront. Good example are our data at affiliate programs. They are as private as written on website and indexed by Google. By pseudonymous blockchain, if you do not want to reveal yourself, your identity is not revealed. Like me on this forum. I am "Sherlock". The BTC address is the same thing. More about it here: https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html

The technology may be good for another 10-15 years. After that, people will have moved on to something else.

Well, then Bitcoin has another 10-15 years correct?

Bitcoin is not set in stone, just the value is and is rising. There is no point of taking the code set in stone. It is a stupid approach. Some people tried it and they failed.

Bitcoin of today is not bitcoin what existed in 2009. The code of bitcoin was forked = changed few times. Also everything around bitcoin, that is broader bitcoin: the wallets, the exchanges, the environment where BTC cen be trustlessly lent etc. is different. So yes, butcoin already changed a lot and it will keep changing. If there are quantum computers, the code will change to be quantum resistant. If there are the electricity issues (I believe they will), it will have to change to POS maybe. If some other non-blockchain decentralised protocols will have significant advantages, even the BTC will fork, maybe not under consensus and all BTC hodlers will have a part. This is the beauty of it.

There were very stupid ideological people, who were thinking that bitcoin code must be set in stone. They first created BCH and then BSV (SV = Satoshi Vision). Their version of bitcoin was the original bitcoin and they are proud of it. But their approach was wrong and market sees it. It is the same as running Windows XP today. I liked to work with XP more than this WIN10, but it would be insane to have XP on online computer nowadays. Everything must adjust and so will Bitcoin.

Probably in few months Bitcoin will have another fork - Taproot. It will do interesting things. And so will BTC adjust in future. Slower than altcoins, but for sure it will keep adjusting. The great thing about BTC is, that unlike ETH or other coins, it does not have central authority. So if one team that is leading the development decides to stop adjusting the BTC, another people will come and develop it. Anyone can do it. Market will decide, which code is needed most, to protect the trilion USD value.

Last remark: this thread was not about Bitcoin, but about blockchain technology used for affiliate marketing. I understand the nocoiner panic recently. I also missed few trains (I mean at railway stations now). It sucks. But there are enough other threads to discuss the imminent death of BTC.

**Michael Martinez** · 21 February 2021, 3:05 pm

Originally Posted by Sherlock

Millions of bitcoins will not be lost again. Millions of bitcoins were lost, when the price was much lower. One million of BTC is now 58 billion USD - people usually secure tens of billions better than a password for an email.

What will be lost is roughly the same USD equivalent that was lost in the past and maybe not even that, because the wallets and security is much better than 10 years ago and people are better educated.

What was lost was lost because passwords to wallets were lost. It had nothing to do with the value of the Bitcoins. There's one wallet being passed around that might have about a billion dollars' worth of Bitcoin in it - if anyone can crack the encryption.

Yes, all of them. Bitcoin is not a database

It's built on blockchain, which is being used as a database. And THAT is what I said was inefficient. Bitcoin is inexorably tied to blockchain. When the blockchain is too big to maintain, Bitcoin becomes worthless.

The value is not the tech behind it. The value of bitcoin is the trust and the need of having the decentralised money.

It's all speculative value right now. Just as much of the stock market's capitalization is speculative value. And those kinds of values rise and fall with the flows and inflows of cash.

Well, then Bitcoin has another 10-15 years correct?

That may come down to how much money is lost in the next downturn and who walks away from it forever. Or the downturn after that. Bitcoin is always just one disaster away from failing forever.

The fundamental flaws with blockchain won't be solved by popularity and the faith and goodwill of the masses.

**Sherlock** · 21 February 2021, 4:03 pm