Imagine a market in which it is possible to bet on the rise or fall of an asset.

If apples are today at 1€ and I am convinced that their price will go down I borrow 100 apples, sell them at 1€ and when the price is at 80c I buy them back margining on the difference. I collect 100 for something I borrowed, buy it back at 80, pay back the loan (in apples) and I have earned 20. In financial jargon this is called going short or opening a short position.

Conversely, if I am convinced otherwise, I borrow euros to buy the apples, when the price goes up I will sell them and return the loan (in euros), margining on the difference. Aka long position.

But let’s stick to short.

#UST is a #cryptocurrency that is always worth one dollar, #stablecoin in jargon. At least in theory.

In practice, so much liquidity is placed in the places where this currency is bought or sold, the exchanges, that anyone who wants to make a trade is unable to move the price. To make sure it is always worth a dollar, and to give guarantees to those who buy it, the issuer puts a large amount of Bitcoin as the underlying, in this case $1.1 billion in BTC bought at an average price of $42k last March.

The attacker borrows 100k Bitcoins (equivalent to $4.2bn) to build a short position, while also buying 1 billion USTs off the market, in private agreement, so as not to move the price (because it is fine that there is huge liquidity, but with a billion the price would have moved).

Having taken these USTs privately, he sells 350M of them on the market, shifting the price to $0.972.

And therein lies the stroke of genius of the attack. Why would someone buy 1 billion coins at $1 and sell them at a lower price? Because he knows that the issuing company has to put liquidity back into the market, thus starting to sell BTC and causing downward pressure on the price of Bitcoin and generating profit for those who had opened short positions.

With the remaining 650M, the transaction is repeated the next day causing further pressure on UST.

Panic sells ensue, all the ordinary people convinced they have money in something stable that in reality is not stable start selling.

BTC loses 10% a day. UST even touches 22 cents, the currency of the company that issues UST, namely Luna, loses 96% in 24 hours.

Billions of dollars of small investors are burned, those who opened the short gloat and have, at the moment, an estimated profit of over a billion dollars.

Images in this post are considered to be in the public domain since found on the web and media therefore supposed to be copyright-free images – it’s not intended from the author of the post to violate any copyright right infringement laws, or to offend anyone; in the case you advise a violation, would you advise me and I’ll promptly remove them. The post it’s also an expression of my personal opinion. 

The Vanishing of the Private Blockchains

The idea of private blockchains, such as enterprise blockchain platforms, will eventually “fail miserably,” was the prediction of CEO of Abra during Fortune’s “Balancing The Ledger” show on Feb. 25 ’19, which now seems to be reality.

Bill Barhydt, CEO of cryptocurrency wallet and investing app Abra, has argued that the idea of a truly decentralized cryptocurrency contradicts the notion of private blockchains.

Unlike public blockchains, such as those of Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH), which can be accessed and joined by anyone, private blockchains represent a permissioned network with access controls that restrict who can join, meaning that they operate like a centralized database system.

Speaking during the show, Barhydt compared enterprise blockchain solutions with the concept of an extranet, a term for a local network protocol that was popular in the 1990s. An extranet represents a controlled private network that only allows access to an authorized set of customers.

Abra’s CEO argued that the extranet phenomenon is “exactly what’s happened with all this enterprise blockchain nonsense.”

Barhydt elaborated that private blockchains will eventually fail, stating:

“People have this fallacy idea that they’re going to make blockchain work inside the firewall. It’s all going to fail miserably. […] It’s all about a truly decentralized cryptocurrency and a private blockchain. It just makes no sense.”


Barhydt’s stance echoes previous statements by Bitcoin developer and Blockchain Capital venture partner Jimmy Song. In June 2018, Song stated that using blockchain technology for a private and centralized system, such as an enterprise, “makes zero sense.”

In the Fortune interview, Barhydt additionally commented on JPMorgan Chase’s recent launch of its bespoke digital currency, JPM Coin. Barhydt suggested that JPMorgan Chase misrepresented its new initiative, stating that it seems more like “a ledger meant for settling trades” than a coin. Barhydt also stated that “if it really is a private blockchain and private coin, I’m guessing it’s a complete waste of time.”

Recently, Ripple (XRP) CEO Brad Garlinghouse said that JPM Coin “misses the point” of crypto, arguing that “introducing a closed network today is like launching AOL after Netscape’s IPO.”

Garlinghouse also claimed that “if banks of different digital asset groups want to settle trades with one another, they’ll have to make markets between their unique digital assets or trade between their digital assets and a common fiat currency.”

My opinion is that private blockchains will soon be replaced by agile and better performing databases within private ecosystems, but we will no longer call them blockchains.

In fact, the term blockchain and its architecture was born to address very specific needs where trust is not needed to ensure trust.

Myself, I designed a distributed ledger protocol (DLT), in 2009, and the reason I decided to move to a public blockchain, OTIchain, today is to ensure independent and transparent communication to my stakeholders while avoiding costly audits for them and us, freeing up these resources for research and development.

In my and in the majority of the experts view if the blockchain is classified in a private environment it does not solve the problem, on the contrary it creates an additional onerous overstructure.

  1. https://blogs.gartner.com/avivah-litan/2021/05/24/microsoft-ends-azure-blockchain-service-where-is-enterprise-blockchain-heading/
  2. https://www.ledgerinsights.com/ibm-blockchain-cto-departs-with-two-key-hyperledger-fabric-developers/
  3. https://www.coindesk.com/business/2021/02/01/ibm-blockchain-is-a-shell-of-its-former-self-after-revenue-misses-job-cuts-sources/

Images in this post are considered to be in the public domain since found on the web and media therefore supposed to be copyright-free images – it’s not intended from the author of the post to violate any copyright right infringement laws, or to offend anyone; in the case you advise a violation, would you advise me and I’ll promptly remove them. The post it’s also an expression of my personal opinion. 


A Deep Dive into public vs private blockchain.

Enterprise companies do not know how to decide with public and private blockchain technologies. Here, we will dig deeper and understand the features and compare public vs private blockchain.

A public blockchain network is a blockchain network where anyone can join whenever they want. Basically, there are no restrictions when it comes to participation. More so, anyone can see the ledger and take part in the consensus process.
For example, Ethereum is one of the public blockchain platform models. Let us check out the best features in this public blockchain vs private blockchain guide.

Enterprise companies do not know how to decide with public and private blockchain technologies. Here, we will dig deeper and understand the features and compare public vs private blockchain.

Basically, digital currencies exchanged in a private blockchain are like Monopoly money, while in a public blockchain if in an exchange can be traded for any other digital or traditional currency.

Public Blockchain: Best Features
High Security
Public blockchain companies always design every single platform in a way that offers full security. Every single day, enterprises and organizations deal with online hacks. It is becoming a big hindrance as time is going by.
Furthermore, it causes billions and billions of dollar losses every year.
But with all the security protocols of a public blockchain, they can easily stop all the hacking issues they face. More so, they can finally ensure true value or better data quality for any project.
The security protocols may vary based on the platform, but I can safely say that public blockchains are robust.

Open Environment
As you already know, the public blockchain is open for all, just like its name. So, no matter where you reside, you can log into these platforms. You would only need a good internet connection and a computer.

Anonymous Nature
This is one of most criticized features of public blockchains that most of the users love.As it is a public domain, this feature is mainly for the safety of one’s possessions. However, people did use it for illegal reasons as well.
People can use any new technology for bad and good purposes. Thus, it should not reflect on public blockchain technology in any way, and as a matter of fact cash is still king since criminals prefers cash for money laundering.1

According to the United Nations, the estimated amount of money laundered globally in one year is 2 to 5% of the global GDP, or $800 billion to $2 trillion, with more than thank 90% of money laundering going undetected today.

Concurrently, the cryptocurrency industry has also been criticized for being a tool for money laundering, despite statistics stating otherwise. It is estimated that only 1.1% of all cryptocurrency transactions are illicit.2

Why Use This?
True Decentralization
In a public blockchain, you will get true decentralization. This is something that is quite absent in private blockchain networks. As everyone has a copy of the ledger, it creates a distributed nature as well.

Full Transparency
Well, nothing can compare to a fully transparent platform to anything else. Basically, the public blockchain companies tend to design the platforms so that it is fully transparent to anyone on the ledger.

The public blockchain network is fully immutable. But what does that mean? Well, it means that once a block gets on the chain, there is no way to change it or delete it. So, it makes sure that no one can just alter a certain block can get benefits from others.

Full User Empowerment
Typically, in any network, the user must follow a lot of rules and regulations. In many cases, the rules might not even be fair ones. But not in public blockchain networks. Here, all the users are empowered as there is no central authority to look over their every move.

Private Blockchain: Best Features
High Efficiency
Even though public blockchain came first, they tend to lack inefficiency. Why? Well, it is because they introduce everyone to the network.

Empowering Enterprises
Private blockchain solutions work to empower the enterprises rather than individual employees. Companies do need great technology to back up their processes. More so, these solutions are mainly for the internal systems of an enterprise.

Why Use This?
Saves Money
Maintaining a private blockchain is rather simple compared to public blockchains. Private blockchain platforms take up only a few resources. But on the other hand, public blockchain takes up a lot to support the platforms’ enormous crowd. Thus, in the long run, it saves a lot of money.

A detail from the digital collage Everydays: The First 5,000 Days, by artist Beeple, aka Mike Winkelmann. Photograph: AP

Public Vs Private Blockchain: The Ultimate Comparison

Here we show you a benchmark of #AURA and #Quadrans vs #OTIchain, #Bitcoin, #Ethereum, #Hedera Hashgraph in collaboration with Raffaele Bini.3

Businesses need to be acquainted with the benefits and drawbacks of public and private blockchains to ascertain which blockchain type will prove the most beneficial for their specific requirements.

The general consensus is that public blockchain and private blockchain are competitors. However, that is not the case. Both platforms serve different business scenarios. Public blockchains tend to better serve B2C players whereas private blockchain platforms are better suited to B2B scenarios. Thus, businesses should adopt a blockchain platform, i.e., public blockchain or private blockchain depending upon the desired goal.

The Proof of Stake consensus mechanism has recently been in the spotlight for quite some time in the context of blockchain scalability issues.

Without going into details about its advantage over Proof of Work, Proof of Stake eliminates the need to spend a huge amount of electricity to validate blocks.

Instead, blockchain participants with the most coins are selected by the algorithm for the right to validate blocks.
The assumption behind Proof of Stake is as follows: those who hold a stake in a network have an incentive to act in its interest.
Other things being equal, the higher the stakes, the greater should be their interest in preserving the system.
Just as in PoS, in the PoA consensus, identity as a form of stake is also scarce. But unlike in PoS, there is only one identity per person.
Identity staking means voluntarily revealing who you are in exchange for the right to validate blocks.
Identity staking can act as a great equalizer, empathised and valued equally by all actors.
Individuals whose identity (and reputation by extension) is at stake for the security of a network have an incentive to preserve the network.
For the concept to work in real, live contexts, certain conditions must be met:
Identity must be true: this means that there must be a standard and robust process to verify that validators are indeed who they claim to be.
Eligibility for identity staking should be hard to achieve so that the right to be a validator is earned, valued and costly to lose.

This is the big PoA identity issue at stake: whoever decides to approve the two conditions above may have an interest in controlling the blockchain through the individuals they have given permission to or pursue economic goals that are increasingly oppressive to them.

AURA is a combination of a permissioned PoA blockchain (for obvious reasons, having to ask permission to participate in the stake) and several applications that use it as a backend for supply chain tracking and anti-counterfeiting of objects.

In Aura since consent is permissioned, the cryptocurrency used therein cannot be valuable or trusted, as it is controlled by a few parties

OTICHAIN is a permissionless PoS blockchain (so anyone can participate in the consensus to secure the network, without censorship or bias) and 1TrueID provides a number of applications that use OTICHAIN as a backend for supply chain tracking, anti-counterfeiting of objects, certifying the ownership of the object to an individual, giving the certification to a third party (in case of sale/gift), using the cryptocurrency embedded in OTICHAIN to transmit value to objects or individuals using it.

From the information retrieved, becoming an AURA node means setting up a server as the consortium says and paying a significant start-up fee.

About Quadrans, I am happy to revise with a note from a member of the Quadrans Foundation technical team, Piersandro Guerrera, original quote:

[quote] Becoming a node of Quadrans (another PoA blockchain used by TextileChain) means paying 1000 euros a year, plus their cryptos at the price they deem appropriate for the client.[/quote]

Revised one as informed from Piersandro Guerrera, (see in the comments):

As written in the Quadrans Foundation website, Quadrans “uses both Proof of Stake and Proof of Work protocols and combines them into a modified Proof of Authority.”

Becoming a node of OTICHAIN means investing (not paying) the amount you want to have a significant return and not having to pass any visa or censorship of any kind.

A bit of technique:
Premised on the attached scheme I would add a comparison with the audience:
An important detail with Hedera is that OTICHAIN uses a transaction security system based UTXO and node confirmations, Hedera uses Hashgraph which accepts all blocks on principle creating a multitude of sidechains. Which does not allow to “reject” a block and does not allow to change the rules of the game (Fork) for code improvement because everything applies.

https://otichain.com/Businesses need to be acquainted with the benefits and drawbacks of public and private blockchains to ascertain which blockchain type will prove the most beneficial for their specific business requirements.

1.https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/cash-still-king-criminals-prefer-cash-for-money-laundering 2.The Hidden Truth Behind Money Laundering, Banks And Cryptocurrency (forbes.com)

A detailof the digital collage BE by Emanuele Bertoli. Photograph RB
A detail from the digital collage BE by Emanuele Bertoli aka BE. Photograph: RB

Images in this post are considered to be in the public domain since found on the web and media therefore supposed to be copyright-free images – it’s not intended from the author of the post to violate any copyright right infringement laws, or to offend anyone; in the case you advise a violation, would you advise me and I’ll promptly remove them. The post it’s also an expression of my personal opinion. 


The company that invented the iPhone — two decades too early.

You’ve probably never heard of General Magic, but in Silicon Valley the company is a legend. An Apple spin off in 1990 with most of the original Mac team on board and a brave new product idea: a portable gadget they called “personal communicator”.

Connected to a telephone socket, it could manage e-mails, dial phone numbers and even send SMS, like instant messages, complete with emoji and stickers.

Provided with an app store equipped with games, music and downloadable programs that could do things like check stock prices and keep track of expenses.

In the original Vision he could take pictures with an accessory (optional). There was also a prototype with a TOUCH SCREEN that could make cell phone calls and surf the web wirelessly, then embryonic. In other words, General Magic pulled out of his proverbial hat the technological equivalent of a working iPhone, a decade before Apple started working on the real one. Shortly after, General Magic himself disappeared.

The early ’90s iphone story

Fueled by hugely positive press, General Magic’s concept IPO in 1995, the first of its kind, raised $96 million before the product had been launched. The stock nearly doubled on the first day, closing at over $26 per share. By 1999, the stock had plunged to $1.38.

Money wasn’t an issue the early ’90s iPHONE were super founded!

General Magic had its origins in Marc Porat convincing Apple CEO John Sculley in the late eighties to spin off a new division to invent an early prototype of the smart phone. Under Sculley’s leadership, Apple developed General Magic’s operations.

A spin off of APPLE … can you imagine … WoW

“I came to Apple in 1988 and remember one of the first things I said to Sculley was that Apple had no future unless they did something beyond the computer,” Porat recalled. “They were so insecure and chaotic and dysfunctional that we [General Magic] were able to work our way through and recruit amazing people.”

The team who invented the future … today are considered some of the best and brightest minds in business and technology.

The 98% of the world’s smartphone market can be traced back to two people who sat no more than 10 feet apart at a company called General Magic? That’s Tony Fadell and Andy Rubin, in case you were wondering.

So too in that office sat the founder of eBay Pierre Omidyar, the original Macintosh engineer Andy Hertzfeld, their head of marketing Joanna Hoffman (played by Kate Winslet in the Steve Jobs movie), Kevin Lynch aka the man behind the Apple Watch, the former CTO of the USA Megan Smith and a host of names who went on to great success and today are considered some of the best and brightest minds in business and technology.

Such an AMAZING team again and again WoW so what went wrong?

General Magic had what it takes to become a very successful company, a BIG TECH like APPLE to MICROSOFT, so money, the right partners a great team, what went wrong?

the General Magic original logo

“Simply” the fact that the CEO was not able to be faithful to the original vision, letting himself be distracted by the good intentions of his stakeholders.

The Vision is so important that only those who are able to be faithful to it to the end and uncompromisingly succeed as Steve Jobs has shown, but that’s another story that hopefully many future CEO’s will be able to repeat in the future, and for one time, why not also in the old EU continent.


The story is now available also in movie and always remember:

The best way to predict the future is to invent it.

Alan Kay

©2020emanuelebertoli  Images in this post are considered to be in the public domain since found on the web and media therefore supposed to be copyright-free images – it’s not intended from the author of the post to violate any copyright right infringement laws, or to offend anyone; in the case you advise a violation, would you advise me and I’ll promptly remove them. The post it’s also an expression of my personal opinion, and do not intend as well to have any commercial purpose

AI and the Blockchain


Freely inspired from the article of Youval Noah Harari with my opinions

Yuval Noah Harari is a historian and philosopher at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the author of 21 Lessons for the 21st Century.

Artificial intelligence could erase many practical advantages of democracy, and erode the ideals of liberty and equality. It will further concentrate power among small elite of Corporate and Government Agencies.

Artificial Intelligence, If chess is our canary in the coal mine, we have been duly warned that the canary is dying

I. The Growing Fear of Irrelevance

There is nothing inevitable about democracy. For all the success that democracies have had over the past century or more, they are blips in history. Monarchies, oligarchies, and other forms of authoritarian rule have been far more common modes of human governance.

The emergence of liberal democracies is associated with ideals of liberty and equality that may seem self-evident and irreversible. But these ideals are far more fragile than we believe. Their success in the 20th century depended on unique technological conditions that may prove ephemeral.


In Italy for example television at the beginning helped to unify the country and to educate the masses on Italian language, high quality theatrical comedies live filmed, opera, classic concert, shows composed of highly qualified dance bodies and anchormen where the routine and an intellectual democracy widespread well-being saw the light, afterwards came the decadence.

In the second decade of the 21st century, liberalism has begun to lose credibility. Questions about the ability of liberal democracy to provide for the middle class have grown louder; politics have grown more tribal.

Information technology is continuing to leap forward; biotechnology is beginning to provide a window into our inner lives—our emotions, thoughts, and choices. Together, infotech and biotech will create unprecedented upheavals in human society, eroding human agency and, possibly, subverting human desires. Under such conditions, liberal democracy and free-market economics might become obsolete.

Ordinary people may not understand artificial intelligence and biotechnology in any detail, but they can sense that the future is passing them by. In 1938 the common man’s condition in the Soviet Union, Germany, or the United States may have been grim, but he was constantly told that he was the most important thing in the world, and that he was the future (provided, of course, that he was an “ordinary man,” rather than, say, a Jew or a woman). He looked at the propaganda posters—which typically depicted coal miners and steelworkers in heroic poses—and saw himself there: “I am in that poster! I am the hero of the future!”

In 2018 the common person feels increasingly irrelevant.  Lots of mysterious terms are bandied about excitedly in ted Talks, at government think tanks, and at high-tech conferences—globalizationblockchaingenetic engineeringAImachine learning—and common people, both men and women, may well suspect that none of these terms is about them.

In the 20th century, the masses revolted against exploitation and sought to translate their vital role in the economy into political power. Now the masses fear irrelevance, and they are frantic to use their remaining political power before it is too late. Brexit and the rise of Donald Trump may therefore demonstrate a trajectory opposite to that of traditional socialist revolutions. The Russian, Chinese, and Cuban revolutions were made by people who were vital to the economy but lacked political power; in 2016, Trump and Brexit were supported by many people who still enjoyed political power but feared they were losing their economic worth. Perhaps in the 21st century, populist revolts will be staged not against economic elite that exploits people but against an economic elite that does not need them anymore. This may well be a losing battle. It is much harder to struggle against irrelevance than against exploitation.

The revolutions in information technology and biotechnology are still in their infancy, and the extent to which they are responsible for the current crisis of liberalism is debatable. Most people in Birmingham, Istanbul, St. Petersburg, and Mumbai are only dimly aware, if they are aware at all, of the rise of AI and its potential impact on their lives. It is undoubtable, however, that the technological revolutions now gathering momentum will in the next few decades confront humankind with the hardest trials it has yet encountered.

II. A New Useless Class?

Let’s start with jobs and incomes, because whatever liberal democracy’s philosophical appeal, it has gained strength in no small part thanks to a practical advantage: The decentralized approach to decision making that is characteristic of liberalism—in both politics and economics—has allowed liberal democracies to outcompete other states, and to deliver rising affluence to their people.

This is why the people see the blockchain as a genuine social impact cushion to the raising technology oligarchy.

Liberalism reconciled the proletariat with the bourgeoisie, the faithful with atheists, natives with immigrants, and Europeans with Asians by promising everybody a larger slice of the pie. With a constantly growing pie, that was possible. And the pie may well keep growing. However, economic growth may not solve social problems that are now being created by technological disruption, because such growth is increasingly predicated on the invention of more and more disruptive technologies.

Fears of machines pushing people out of the job market are, of course, nothing new, and in the past such fears proved to be unfounded. But artificial intelligence is different from the old machines. In the past, machines competed with humans mainly in manual skills. Now they are beginning to compete with us in cognitive skills. And we don’t know of any third kind of skill—beyond the manual and the cognitive—in which humans will always have an edge.

At least for a few more decades, human intelligence is likely to far exceed computer intelligence in numerous fields. Hence as computers take over more routine cognitive jobs, new creative jobs for humans will continue to appear. Many of these new jobs will probably depend on cooperation rather than competition between humans and AI. Human-AI teams will likely prove superior not just to humans, but also to computers working on their own.

However, most of the new jobs will presumably demand high levels of expertise and ingenuity, and therefore may not provide an answer to the problem of unemployed unskilled laborers, or workers employable only at extremely low wages. Moreover, as AI continues to improve, even jobs that demand high intelligence and creativity might gradually disappear. The world of chess serves as an example of where things might be heading. For several years after IBM’s computer Deep Blue defeated Garry Kasparov in 1997, human chess players still flourished; AI was used to train human prodigies, and teams composed of humans plus computers proved superior to computers playing alone.

Yet in recent years, computers have become so good at playing chess that their human collaborators have lost their value and might soon become entirely irrelevant. On December 6, 2017, another crucial milestone was reached when Google’s AlphaZero program defeated the Stockfish 8 program. Stockfish 8 had won a world computer chess championship in 2016. It had access to centuries of accumulated human experience in chess, as well as decades of computer experience. By contrast, AlphaZero had not been taught any chess strategies by its human creators—not even standard openings. Rather, it used the latest machine-learning principles to teach itself chess by playing against itself. Nevertheless, out of 100 games that the novice AlphaZero played against Stockfish 8, AlphaZero won 28 and tied 72—it didn’t lose once. Since AlphaZero had learned nothing from any human, many of its winning moves and strategies seemed unconventional to the human eye. They could be described as creative, if not downright genius.

Can you guess how long AlphaZero spent learning chess from scratch, preparing for the match against Stockfish 8, and developing its genius instincts? Four hours[1]. For centuries, chess was considered one of the crowning glories of human intelligence. AlphaZero went from utter ignorance to creative mastery in four hours, without the help of any human guide.

AlphaZero is not the only imaginative software out there. One of the ways to catch cheaters in chess tournaments today is to monitor the level of originality that players exhibit. If they play an exceptionally creative move, the judges will often suspect that it could not possibly be a human move—it must be a computer move. At least in chess, creativity is already considered to be the trademark of computers rather than humans! So if chess is our canary in the coal mine, we have been duly warned that the canary is dying. What is happening today to human-AI teams in chess might happen down the road to human-AI teams in policing, medicine, banking, and many other fields.

What’s more, AI enjoys uniquely nonhuman abilities, which makes the difference between AI and a human worker one of kind rather than merely of degree. Two particularly important nonhuman abilities that AI possesses are connectivity and updatability.

For example, many drivers are unfamiliar with all the changing traffic regulations on the roads they drive, and they often violate them. In addition, since every driver is a singular entity, when two vehicles approach the same intersection, the drivers sometimes miscommunicate their intentions and collide. Self-driving cars, by contrast, will know all the traffic regulations and never disobey them on purpose, and they could all be connected to one another. When two such vehicles approach the same junction, they won’t really be two separate entities, but part of a single algorithm. The chances that they might miscommunicate and collide will therefore be far smaller.

Similarly, if the World Health Organization identifies a new disease, or if a laboratory produces a new medicine, it can’t immediately update all the human doctors in the world. Yet even if you had billions of AI doctors in the world—each monitoring the health of a single human being—you could still update all of them within a split second, and they could all communicate to one another their assessments of the new disease or medicine. These potential advantages of connectivity and updatability are so huge that at least in some lines of work, it might make sense to replace all humans with computers, even if individually some humans still do a better job than the machines.

This is what is actually happening for algorithms that I am helping to develop for High Frequency Traders, a hobby for me a multimillion key success tool for them.

The same technologies that might make billions of people economically irrelevant might also make them easier to monitor and control.

All of this leads to one very important conclusion: The automation revolution will not consist of a single watershed event, after which the job market will settle into some new equilibrium. Rather, it will be a cascade of ever bigger disruptions. Old jobs will disappear and new jobs will emerge, but the new jobs will also rapidly change and vanish. People will need to retrain and reinvent themselves not just once, but many times.

Just as in the 20th century governments established massive education systems for young people, in the 21st century they will need to establish massive reeducation systems for adults. But will that be enough? Change is always stressful, and the hectic world of the early 21st century has produced a global epidemic of stress. As job volatility increases, will people be able to cope? By 2050, a useless class might emerge, the result not only of a shortage of jobs or a lack of relevant education but also of insufficient mental stamina to continue learning new skills. Let’s travel trough the future years.

III. The Rise of Digital Dictatorships

As many people lose their economic value, they might also come to lose their political power. The same technologies that might make billions of people economically irrelevant might also make them easier to monitor and control.

AI frightens many people because they don’t trust it to remain obedient. Science fiction makes much of the possibility that computers or robots will develop consciousness—and shortly thereafter will try to kill all humans. But there is no particular reason to believe that AI will develop consciousness as it becomes more intelligent. We should instead fear AI because it will probably always obey its human masters, and never rebel. AI is a tool and a weapon unlike any other that human beings have developed; it will almost certainly allow the already powerful to consolidate their power further.

 IN ALL THIS high-tech commercial world there is nothing that looks particularly democratic, (except blockchain).

Artificial Intelligence lends itself to surveillance as well as liberty, to new forms of manipulation and covert control as well as new kinds of participation, to skewed, unjust market outccomes as well as greater productivity.

The consumer Society and the open society are not quite synonymous. Capitalism and democracy have a relationship, but it is something less than a marriage


Consider surveillance. Numerous countries around the world, including several democracies, are busy building unprecedented systems of surveillance. For example, Israel is a leader in the field of surveillance technology, and has created in the occupied West Bank a working prototype for a total-surveillance regime[2]. Already today whenever Palestinians make a phone call, post something on Facebook, or travel from one city to another, they are likely to be monitored by Israeli microphones, cameras, drones, or spy software. Algorithms analyze the gathered data, helping the Israeli security forces pinpoint and neutralize what they consider to be potential threats. The Palestinians may administer some towns and villages in the West Bank, but the Israelis command the sky, the airwaves, and cyberspace. It therefore takes surprisingly few Israeli soldiers to effectively control the roughly 2.5 million Palestinians who live in the West Bank.

In one incident in October 2017, a Palestinian laborer posted to his private Facebook account a picture of himself in his workplace, alongside a bulldozer. Adjacent to the image he wrote, “Good morning!” A Facebook translation algorithm made a small error when transliterating the Arabic letters. Instead of Ysabechhum (which means “Good morning”), the algorithm identified the letters as Ydbachhum (which means “Hurt them”). Suspecting that the man might be a terrorist intending to use a bulldozer to run people over, Israeli security forces swiftly arrested him[3]. They released him after they realized that the algorithm had made a mistake. Even so, the offending Facebook post was taken down—you can never be too careful. What Palestinians are experiencing today in the West Bank may be just a primitive preview of what billions of people will eventually experience all over the planet.

Imagine, for instance, that the current regime in North Korea gained a more advanced version of this sort of technology in the future. North Koreans might be required to wear a biometric bracelet that monitors everything they do and say, as well as their blood pressure and brain activity. Using the growing understanding of the human brain and drawing on the immense powers of machine learning, the North Korean government might eventually be able to gauge what each and every citizen is thinking at each and every moment. If a North Korean looked at a picture of Kim Jong Un and the biometric sensors picked up telltale signs of anger (higher blood pressure, increased activity in the amygdala), that person could be in the gulag the next day.

The conflict between democracy and dictatorship is actually a conflict between two different data-processing systems. AI may swing the advantage toward the latter.

And yet such hard-edged tactics may not prove necessary, at least much of the time. A facade of free choice and free voting may remain in place in some countries, even as the public exerts less and less actual control. To be sure, attempts to manipulate voters’ feelings are not new. But once somebody (whether in San Francisco or Beijing or Moscow) gains the technological ability to manipulate the human heart—reliably, cheaply, and at scale—democratic politics will mutate into an emotional puppet show.

We are unlikely to face a rebellion of sentient machines in the coming decades, but we might have to deal with hordes of bots that know how to press our emotional buttons better than our mother does and that use this uncanny ability, at the behest of a human elite, to try to sell us something—be it a car, a politician, or an entire ideology. The bots might identify our deepest fears, hatreds, and cravings and use them against us. We have already been given a foretaste of this in recent elections and referendums across the world, when hackers learned how to manipulate individual voters by analyzing data about them and exploiting their prejudices. While science-fiction thrillers are drawn to dramatic apocalypses of fire and smoke, in reality we may be facing a banal apocalypse by clicking.

The biggest and most frightening impact of the AI revolution might be on the relative efficiency of democracies and dictatorships. Historically, autocracies have faced crippling handicaps in regard to innovation and economic growth. In the late 20th century, democracies usually outperformed dictatorships, because they were far better at processing information. We tend to think about the conflict between democracy and dictatorship as a conflict between two different ethical systems, but it is actually a conflict between two different data-processing systems. Democracy distributes the power to process information and make decisions among many people and institutions, whereas dictatorship concentrates information and power in one place. Given 20th-century technology, it was inefficient to concentrate too much information and power in one place. Nobody had the ability to process all available information fast enough and make the right decisions. This is one reason the Soviet Union made far worse decisions than the United States, and why the Soviet economy lagged far behind the American economy.


Philosophically, intellectually—in every way—human society is unprepared for the rise of artificial intelligence. – Henry A. Kissinger

AI developers, as inexperienced in politics and philosophy as I am in law, should ask themselves some of the questions I have raised here in order to build answers into their engineering efforts. The U.S. government in particular should consider a presidential commission of eminent thinkers to help develop a national vision. This much is certain: if we do not start this effort soon, before long we shall discover we started too late


However, artificial intelligence may soon swing the pendulum in the opposite direction. AI makes it possible to process enormous amounts of information centrally. In fact, it might make centralized systems far more efficient than diffuse systems, because machine learning works better when the machine has more information to analyze. If you disregard all privacy concerns and concentrate all the information relating to a billion people in one database, you’ll wind up with much better algorithms than if you respect individual privacy and have in your database only partial information on a million people. An authoritarian government that orders all its citizens to have their DNA sequenced and to share their medical data with some central authority would gain an immense advantage in genetics and medical research over societies in which medical data are strictly private. The main handicap of authoritarian regimes in the 20th century—the desire to concentrate all information and power in one place—may become their decisive advantage in the 21st century.

New technologies will continue to emerge, of course, and some of them may encourage the distribution rather than the concentration of information and power. Blockchain technology, and the use of cryptocurrencies enabled by it, is currently touted as a possible counterweight to centralized power. But blockchain technology is still in the embryonic stage, and we don’t yet know whether it will indeed counterbalance the centralizing tendencies of AI. Remember that the Internet, too, was hyped in its early days as a libertarian panacea that would free people from all centralized systems—but is now poised to make centralized authority more powerful than ever.

Even if some societies remain ostensibly democratic, the increasing efficiency of algorithms will still shift more and more authority from individual humans to networked machines. We might willingly give up more and more authority over our lives because we will learn from experience to trust the algorithms more than our own feelings, eventually losing our ability to make many decisions for ourselves. Just think of the way that, within a mere two decades, billions of people have come to entrust Google’s search algorithm with one of the most important tasks of all: finding relevant and trustworthy information. As we rely more on Google for answers, our ability to locate information independently diminishes. Already today, “truth” is defined by the top results of a Google search. This process has likewise affected our physical abilities, such as navigating space. People ask Google not just to find information but also to guide them around. Self-driving cars and AI physicians would represent further erosion: While these innovations would put truckers and human doctors out of work, their larger import lies in the continuing transfer of authority and responsibility to machines.

Humans are used to thinking about life as a drama of decision making. Liberal democracy and free-market capitalism see the individual as an autonomous agent constantly making choices about the world. Works of art—be they Shakespeare plays, Jane Austen novels, or cheesy Hollywood comedies—usually revolve around the hero having to make some crucial decision. To be or not to be? To listen to my wife and kill King Duncan, or listen to my conscience and spare him? To marry Mr. Collins or Mr. Darcy? Christian and Muslim theology similarly focus on the drama of decision making, arguing that everlasting salvation depends on making the right choice.

What will happen to this view of life as we rely on AI to make ever more decisions for us? Even now we trust Netflix to recommend movies and Spotify to pick music we’ll like. But why should AI’s helpfulness stop there?

Every year millions of college students need to decide what to study. This is a very important and difficult decision, made under pressure from parents, friends, and professors who have varying interests and opinions. It is also influenced by students’ own individual fears and fantasies, which are themselves shaped by movies, novels, and advertising campaigns. Complicating matters, a given student does not really know what it takes to succeed in a given profession, and doesn’t necessarily have a realistic sense of his or her own strengths and weaknesses.

It’s not so hard to see how AI could one day make better decisions than we do about careers, and perhaps even about relationships. But once we begin to count on AI to decide what to study, where to work, and whom to date or even marry, human life will cease to be a drama of decision making, and our conception of life will need to change. Democratic elections and free markets might cease to make sense. So might most religions and works of art. Imagine Anna Karenina taking out her smartphone and asking Siri whether she should stay married to Karenin or elope with the dashing Count Vronsky. Or imagine your favorite Shakespeare play with all the crucial decisions made by a Google algorithm. Hamlet and Macbeth would have much more comfortable lives, but what kind of lives would those be? Do we have models for making sense of such lives?


This is why the future of retail, it so important and a core of our new human renaissance, with an eye on the past, but gaining advantage from the modern technologies.

In my opinion the future commercial centre that will have more success will be the ones who put the human enlightenment and his emotions at the centre, therefore like in the old artisans village, the goods will be made on demand or to measure, and cultural events and museum will be at the centre of the stage.

Can parliaments and political parties overcome these challenges and forestall the darker scenarios? At the current moment this does not seem likely. Technological disruption is not even a leading item on the political agenda. During the 2016 U.S. presidential race, the main reference to disruptive technology concerned Hillary Clinton’s email debacle, and despite all the talk about job loss, neither candidate directly addressed the potential impact of automation. Donald Trump warned voters that Mexicans would take their jobs, and that the U.S. should therefore build a wall on its southern border. He never warned voters that algorithms would take their jobs, nor did he suggest building a firewall around California.

So what should we do?

For starters, we need to place a much higher priority on understanding how the human mind works—particularly how our own wisdom and compassion can be cultivated.


If we invest too much in AI and too little in developing the human mind, the very sophisticated artificial intelligence of computers might serve only to empower the natural stupidity of humans, and to nurture our worst (but also, perhaps, most powerful) impulses, among them greed and hatred.

To avoid such an outcome, for every dollar and every minute we invest in improving AI, we would be wise to invest a dollar and a minute in exploring and developing human consciousness.

More practically, and more immediately, if we want to prevent the concentration of all wealth and power in the hands of small elite, we must regulate the ownership of data. In ancient times, land was the most important asset, so politics was a struggle to control land. In the modern era, machines and factories became more important than land, so political struggles focused on controlling these vital means of production. In the 21st century, data will eclipse both land and machinery as the most important asset, so politics will be a struggle to control data’s flow.

Unfortunately, we don’t have much experience in regulating the ownership of data, which is inherently a far more difficult task than regulating land or machines. Data are everywhere and nowhere at the same time, they can move at the speed of light, and you can create as many copies of them as you want. Do the data collected about my DNA, my brain, and my life belong to me, or to the government, or to a corporation, or to the human collective?

The race to accumulate data is already on, and is currently headed by giants such as Google, Amazon and Facebook and, in China, Baidu and Tencent. So far, many of these companies have acted as “attention merchants”—they capture our attention by providing us with free information, services, and entertainment, and then they resell our attention to advertisers. Yet their true business isn’t merely selling ads. Rather, by capturing our attention they manage to accumulate immense amounts of data about us, which are worth more than any advertising revenue. We aren’t their customers—we are their product.

IV. Distributed data Processing blockchain can be the philosopher’s Stone?

Ordinary people will find it very difficult to resist this process. At present, many of us are happy to give away our most valuable asset—our personal data—in exchange for free email services and funny cat videos. But if, later on, ordinary people decide to try to block the flow of data, they are likely to have trouble doing so, especially as they may have come to rely on the network to help them make decisions, and even for their health and physical survival.

Nationalization of data by governments could offer one solution; it would certainly curb the power of big corporations. But history suggests that we are not necessarily better off in the hands of overmighty governments. So we had better call upon our scientists, our philosophers, our lawyers, and even our poets to turn their attention to this big question: How do you regulate the ownership of data?

Currently, humans risk becoming similar to domesticated animals. We have bred docile cows that produce enormous amounts of milk but are otherwise far inferior to their wild ancestors. They are less agile, less curious, and less resourceful. We are now creating tame humans who produce enormous amounts of data and function as efficient chips in a huge data-processing mechanism, but they hardly maximize their human potential. If we are not careful, we will end up with downgraded humans misusing upgraded computers to wreak havoc on themselves and on the world.

If you find these prospects alarming—if you dislike the idea of living in a digital dictatorship or some similarly degraded form of society—then the most important contribution you can make is to find ways to prevent too much data from being concentrated in too few hands, and also find ways to keep distributed data processing more efficient than centralized data processing.

These will not be easy tasks. But achieving them may be the best safeguard of democracy.


[2] https://theintercept.com/2016/10/17/how-israel-became-a-hub-for-surveillance-technology/

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/24/facebook-palestine-israel-translates-good-morning-attack-them-arrest

The Revolution from What to Who ©

better world

Actually we don’t really know what we are eating, we don’t know what we are dressing, at the end, we do not know Who We Are!

Eco-LabelsComing back from Geneva my mind was overloaded of certification schemes,  whilst I was thinking that the sole certification we will need in the future could be the “I MADE IT, and this is why the blockchain, and let me say 1TrueID can be a real revolution.

Finger scanner icons on black background.You are Your Certifier!

We’ve come too far to give up who we are; now, we have the possibility to allocate a digital identity to everything’s and without the need of  external auditors or advisory or authority. You will tell your story and the story of every product genuinely , being the sole responsible in front of your customers.

We can own, we can share, we can be social or private, the only thing you can’t do in an advanced supply chain blockchain vision is to be fake or misleading, and all of that sounds good 🙂

No needs to declare that Class I and “Extra class” cucumbers are allowed a bend of 10mm per 10cm of length and  that Class II cucumbers can bend twice as much, you will simply let the world see where you grow how you cultivate them and the way you nurture your crop, and why not in real time.


In the Future like it was in the past we will join the love to know the “WHO MADE MY”,  to communicate one to one with him. Like in the past we will have thousands of artisan making the difference, millions of makers communicating in real time with the final consumer, no more products the markets don’t want or do not deserve to buy.

revolution 2

You Love my product, OK I am the one who produced it, yes it is me really me, how I can improve, what you would like me to do for you?

This is only the beginning of the Makers Revolution smaller and bigger.

…coming soon the 1TrueID B2C revolution

And all of that for a sustanaible living, since we do not have planet B for now.


Images in this post are considered to be in the public domain since found on the web and media therefore supposed to be copyright-free images – it’s not intended from the author of the post to violate any copyright right infringement laws, or to offend anyone; in the case you advise a violation, would you advise me and I’ll promptly remove them. The post it’s also an expression of my personal opinion, and do not intend as well to have any commercial purpose.



In a few days I will be testimonial in some events, from Sunnyvale to Milan, speaking about different arguments related to innovation, sustainability and internationalization.

In all of them I see a red thread that links every moment of my life lately and that we can call Serendipity.

“This discovery I made by a talisman [a procedure achieving results like a charm] … by which I find everything I want … wherever I dip for it. This discovery, indeed, is almost of that kind which I call Serendipity, a very expressive word.” Walpole formed the word on an old name for Sri Lanka, Serendip.

He explained that this name was part of the title of “a silly fairy tale, called The Three Princes of Serendip[1]: as their highnesses traveled, they were always making discoveries, by accidents and sagacity, of things which they were not in quest of….”


Being curios and open minded is not so obvious, how you can understand who is?

  • An open mind person has almost always an open heart
  • An open heart has almost always shining and charming eyes
  • Charming eyes has almost always a gentle attitude
  • A gentle attitude has no envy
  • No envy means you can appreciate your fellows
  • Having fellows means you are not alone
  • Being Social minded means you know the meaning of giving back
  • Giving back is the secret of happiness

happy 2If you recognize yourself in this description you are a lucky person like me.

What are you waiting for? Join the club 🙂

[1] .[From the characters in the Persian fairy tale The Three Princes of Serendip, who made such discoveries, from Persian Sarandīp, Sri Lanka, from Arabic Sarandīb, ultimately from Sanskrit Siṃhaladvīpaḥ : Siṃhalaḥ, Sri Lanka + dvīpaḥ, island; see Dhivehi.]



©2018emanuelebertoli  Images in this post are considered to be in the public domain since found on the web and media therefore supposed to be copyright-free images – it’s not intended from the author of the post to violate any copyright right infringement laws, or to offend anyone; in the case you advise a violation, would you advise me and I’ll promptly remove them. The post it’s also an expression of my personal opinion, and do not intend as well to have any commercial purpose

Beyond the Blockchain

sb10067107h-001Blockchain Just Became Obsolete. Why the Future of traceable ownership can be 1trueID®,

considered the 1trueID® infrastructure Blockchain looks obsolete.  1trueID® show a software app, platform, DDNA that develop the social consensus algorithm: an entirely new distributed ownership (2)“own it℗” patented ledger technology, (when public), that is much more cost-effective (no proof-of-work), faster (like a credit card transaction), safer (similar standards of a digital passport or a contactless card), more efficient (no stale blocks) and mathematically fairer than the classic blockchain.

This is most probably the future of the ownership in a decentralized technology.

What about Blockchain Technology?

Considered the greatest technological innovation since the internet: Blockchain technology emerged in response to the collapse of several banking institutions in 2008 with the release of a whitepaper by Satoshi Nakamoto titled: “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.”

“…blockchain technology facilitates peer-to-peer transactions without any intermediary such as a bank or governing body …” 

– Don Tapscott

Blockchain is simply a database that is public (no one owns it), distributed (no centralized server), is continuously updated, and is secured by the art of cryptography.

ownership (1)What is 1trueid® and Why is it Better?

1trueid® is a different way to distributed ledger technology system that eliminates the need for massive computation and unsustainable energy consumption like those of Bitcoin.


Most importantly, it is able to reach a social consensus, thanks to his ”own it℗” patented feature

cool dnaWhy we call it blockchain and beyond:

  • Our Bitcoin is the DDNA
  • Our Node are smartphones
  • Our Miners are the makers
  • Our validators is the community of the owners

Ok our platform is not open source purists may be right,  but who would like to give up his ownership in an open context?

  • So our platform is simply the regulator, non the validator, therefore cannot be open, at the same time, the transactions are distributed and public.

Why it is better?

  1. Faster: limited only by bandwidth, as of now Bitcoin is limited to 7 transactions per second.
  2. More Fair: mathematically proven fairness (via ownership social consensus) meaning no individual can manipulate it, you could duplicate the code, (as you can do with a contact less credit card), but the social ownership validation reveal the fake to the system and the community.

In the blockchain world, a miner can choose the order for which transactions occur in a block, can delay orders by placing them in future blocks, even stop them entirely from entering the system.

ownership_completeIn the 1trueid® social consensus scheme,  time ownership prevents an individual from affecting the ‘’own it’’ order of transactions.

Once an event occurs, everyone knows about it practically in real time. Only the effects of the transaction are necessary in storing, everything else can be discarded. This shrinks the huge amount of storage currently needed (Bitcoin: 60GB) to a infinitesimal fraction,  allowing smartphones to act as a node. 

  • Improved Security:The NSA‘s Skipjack algorithm used in its Fortezza program employs 80-bit keys, 1trueid use 128-bit keys: No member can prevent the community from reaching a consensus, nor can they change the consensus once it has been reached. The Advanced Encryption Standard published in 2001 uses a key sizes of 128 bits, 192 or 256 bits. Many observers consider 128 bits sufficient for the foreseeable future for symmetric algorithms of AES‘s quality until quantum computers become available
  • 100% Efficient: No mined block ever becomes stale. In the blockchain, transactions are put into containers (blocks) that form a single, long chain. If two miners create two blocks at the same time, the community will eventually choose one and discard the other. In 1trueid®, every digital DNA when used become social none are discarded.
  • Inexpensive: avoids proof-of-work (PoW), meaning it does not have to waste computations to slow itself down, therefore the expensive, custom hardware is no longer necessary. In the blockchain, if new blocks arrive too quickly they can be discarded. This is why Bitcoin is currently PoW, as this artificially slows down the mining process – hence the expensive hardware needed to mine. With 1trueid® , every member can create a digital DNA whenever they want.
  • Updated: The social community work as our own consensus stamp. While Ethereum is looking at PoS with Casper, our social platform share the ownership. 1trueid® uses a protocol called “Own it℗” to achieve the ownership. The own it feature act with a Smartphone as a track and trace validation, which can be defined as calling any random DDNA and telling that node that it is a valid code. In distributed ledger technology the “baseline” or minimum bandwidth required is that the transactions go to every node. 1trueid® attach a small additional amount of information, which contains the last person that interacted with the code,

 What happens if the server crash: plain and simple, our system has the encrypted information resident on the object and the validation on secure encrypted servers constantly backed up. The coding space is minimal therefore redundancy security system creates trust. If you lose your personal computer what happens to your valuable bitcoins? With 1trueid® having the code on a physical object and the validation on secure servers you are always safe, so we can consider 1trueid® the perfect mix among a virtual and a physical currency.

quantum computer

©2017emanuelebertoli Images in this post are considered to be in the public domain since found on the web and media therefore supposed to be copyright-free images – it’s not intended from the author of the post to violate any copyright right infringement laws, or to offend anyone; in the case you advise a violation, would you advise me and I’ll promptly remove them. The post it’s also an expression of my personal opinion, and do not intend as well to have any commercial purpose

Finally Good design is the new black


So distant in time so near in vision Steve Jobs and Adriano Olivetti.

jobs olivettiGreat companies in the past as Olivetti and now such as Apple and Tesla are all design-driven companies.

These companies adopt design thinking when they are creating new products and solving business problems.

Last year, Forrester Research and Adobe found that design-driven companies have outperformed the S&P Index by 219% over 10 years.

From ELF <<“When you do the common things in life in an uncommon way, you will command the attention of the world.”

— George Washington Carver

Design is a key differentiator in driving business success and customer engagement. In a study conducted by the Design Management Institute reviewing business performance for design-driven companies as compared to the S&P Index over a decade (2004-2014), design-driven companies consistently outperformed the S&P by 219%.>>

And if you like numbers, take a look at these. Design-led companies reported:

  • 41% higher market share
  • 46% competitive advantage overall
  • 50% more loyal customers
  • 70% digital experiences beat competitors

Take Apple as an example, it wasn’t always the mega-success that it is today. In 1997, Steve Jobs conducted a major company overhaul. He cut several product lines and pushed the company toward developing a distinctly Apple experience. To this day, all of the “i” products’ look, feel, and user-friendliness set Apple apart from its competitors.

Design thinking showed us that Apple was a company with a soul and vision.

Design is the new black

the-white-house-beThe speed of innovation is only getting faster and it’s because of the internet. It’s permeating every business. Take television and film, i.e. House of Cards was bought by Netflix somewhat because Netflix’s Chief Content Officer, looked at the data of Netflix users’ streaming behavior and concluded that there was an audience for Kevin Spacey.

Everything that any profession does—from research and development, to strategy, to content creation—can gain a soul only through design thinking. This is why I love design.

Images in this post are considered to be in the public domain since found on the web and media therefore supposed to be copyright-free images – it’s not intended from the author of the post to violate any copyright right infringement laws, or to offend anyone; in the case you advise a violation, would you advise me and I’ll promptly remove them. The post it’s also an expression of my personal opinion, and do not intend as well to have any commercial purpose.

Happy Mind Happy Life Beauty Living

Westminster Abbey

In my experience I started to live in beauty only when I decided to turn off the nasty buzzers.

But what about beauty links it to happiness?

In The Architecture of Happiness, Alain de Botton weighs the feeling of walking into an “ugly” McDonalds in the Westminster area of London compared to the feeling of entering the “beautiful” Westminster Cathedral across the street. He says that because of the harsh lighting, the plastic furniture, and the cacophonous color scheme (all those bright yellows and reds), one tends to feel immediately “anxious” in the McDonalds.

What one feels in the Westminster Cathedral, however, is a calmness brought on by a series of architectural and artistic decisions: the muted colors (greys and bleak reds), the romantic yellow lighting that bursts out onto Victoria Street, the intricate mosaics, and the vaulted ceilings. Although the Westminster Cathedral has the same principle elements of architecture as the McDonald’s—windows, doors, floors, ceilings, and seats—the cathedral helps people to relax and reflect, where the fast food restaurant causes one to feel stressed and hurried.

It seems part of humans’ appreciation of beauty is because it is able to conjure the feelings we tend to associate with happiness: calmness, a connection to history or the divine, wealth, time for reflection and appreciation, and, perhaps surprisingly, hope.

“Beauty manifests a hope that life would be better if the object of beauty were part of it,” writes Princeton philosopher Alexander Nehamas in Only a Promise of Happiness: The Place of Beauty in a World of Art.

wpnature.com-field-lavender-fragrance-sky-nice-summer-scent-nature-beautiful-lovely-purple-meadow-pretty-rows-phone-wallpapers-1024x640Nature is my inspiration, to love my perspiration, live in peacefulness is what we have in return, and it is up to us to decide whether it is worth.

surf be

Images in this post are considered to be in the public domain since found on the web and media therefore supposed to be copyright-free images – it’s not intended from the author of the post to violate any copyright right infringement laws, or to offend anyone; in the case you advise a violation, would you advise me and I’ll promptly remove them. The post it’s also an expression of my personal opinion, and do not intend as well to have any commercial purpose