Slashdot Mirror
Bitcoin Releases Version 0.3
Teppy writes "How's this for a disruptive technology? Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer, network-based digital currency with no central bank, and no transaction fees. Using a proof-of-work concept, nodes burn CPU cycles searching for bundles of coins, broadcasting their findings to the network. Analysis of energy usage indicates that the market value of Bitcoins is already above the value of the energy needed to generate them, indicating healthy demand. The community is hopeful the currency will remain outside the reach of any government." Here are the FAQ, a paper describing Bitcoin in more technical detail (PDF), and the Wikipedia article. Note: a commercial service called BitCoin Ltd., in pre-alpha at bitcoin.com, bears no relation to the open source digital currency.
I would like to see what sort of guarantees are in place for virtual currency
Tisha Hayes
and the moment it's cracked the world economy collapses? Nah. Pass.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
The Wikipedia article (beyond the fact that the article is on the most unreliable data source outside of a Soviet propaganda factory) is sourced entirely to bitcoin.org. This /. article is sourced entirely to Wikipedia and to....bitcoin.org.
So it's slashvertising AND garbage. Three cheers for kdawson.
http://bitcoin.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php?page=FAQ
means? This sounds like something I would do in an RPG? Where does it find these 'bundles of coins'? Am I just being obtuse about all of this? O_O
Bitcom... Backed by the Greek treasury.
Tisha Hayes
As someone pointed out, this article is light enough on source material that it may count as more of a slashvertizement. That said, if Bitcoin, or any micropayment and/or e-cash plan scales beyond a certain level, it's gonna attract both criminals and government interest and intervention, much as age-old Islamic halawa got a lot more notice when used by gangs like Al-Qaeda.
Luke, help me take this mask off
>>Analysis of energy usage indicates that the market value of Bitcoins is already above the value of the energy needed to generate them, indicating healthy demand.
This does not mean anything - it strikes me this is the internet version of the guy we used to have in the UK who walked up and down oxford street with a placard warning against the dangers of lust and passion caused by fish, meat, bird, cheese, egg, peas, beans, nuts and sitting,
Presumably later on they start talking about the Gold Standard, Jews and the Illuminati.
A base value for bitcoins is assumed to be the energy used to create it. The system itself appears to be far more profitable when operating at am exchange entity or trader. ie, the ability to control the effective value of the coin in question. Which lends the whole process to feeling more like a pyramid scheme than anything else. Now, if you wanted a lossy system that was anonymous and had morally bankrupt exchange locations it would be useful anywhere an anonymous transaction is a must.
On the flip side, because wealth is always being generated for free, a purpose built rig which excels at generating coins more efficiently would essentially be a living cash machine. This would in effect mean that the coin itself has no actual value. It's worthless because it cannot be returned to the previous state. This is somewhat important to me when a system is based on the trade of goods.
In terms of actual exchange it introduces to much latency to ensure the transaction is actually valid. In terms of instant gratification the whole thing begins to break down.
The good news is that anybody is certainly free to use it. Unfortunately, because anyone can print money (even small amounts) I'm not going to be giving up any of my items today.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
Could we just get a random reddit submitter instead? Please?
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
from wiki
The assumption that the longest one is the oldest and most reliable is invalid, Since anyone can peer, there's no reason that a peer can't fake itself as 20, 30, 100 peers, and, working on a very fast machine, produce a longer chain quickly than an older peer.
I've been involved with the Bitcoin project for a while, and there are steps in place to prevent this. Essentially, the network tries to maintain block generation at a rate of six blocks per hour (one every 10 minutes) by checking every 2856 blocks (nominally 2 weeks) if the rate was too high or too low. At that point, all nodes adjust their hash target such that it gets more or less difficult to generate blocks. The net result is that more nodes or faster nodes can only really influence the market for 2856 blocks. There is discussion about reducing this number to lower that time, as well. If you'd like to discuss this with some Bitcoin participants, drop by the IRC channel: #bitcoin-dev on Freenode. I'm Lachesis on IRC.
The webmaster is resizing the host at Rackspace now. The site should be back up soon. Until then, feel free to come talk with the Bitcoin community about this on IRC: #bitcoin-dev on Freenode.
Can we have another round of Flooz, please?
So this system requires CPUs to burn scarce, real electricity in order to generate virtual electronic tokens whose only purpose is to simulate the scarcity of rare metals, so that we can continue to use the old 'exchange value' economic model in the realm of information where by definition, it does not apply.
This seems like basing an economy on burning one's food crops to prove wealth and using the ash to buy things. I'm sure it would 'work', for some definition of work, but it doesn't seem particularly... efficient. Or sensible. Granted, humans do indulge in self-destructive behaviour, but do we really have to port all our bad habits into the digital world?
Is there some actual upside to this system which I'm not getting?
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
couldn't find anything on the 60's but this page from 2009 was interesting.
http://www.brianrwright.com/Coffee_Coaster/01_Columns/2009/090609_Liberty_Dollar_Game_On.htm
with the currency being made of precious metal and not being legal tender the worst that happens is you go for scrap value.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
Since the site is down and the summary is light on information, let me try and summarise this a bit better, from what I've picked up, so I might be wrong on some of the details):
Nodes connect to each other in a P2P network.
The nodes perform hashing problems, attempting to find a number that hashes to a value with a certain number of 0's at the start (binary zero's, aka, the number has to be below a certain value)
The network assigns bitcoins to those nodes who have found solutions to the hashes.
After a certain amount of time the difficulty of finding the hashes increases(an extra 0 is added to the hash solution required)
This increase in difficulty continues until eventually there will be 21million bitcoins and no more can exist.
We are currently in the inflationary stage, so the supply of bitcoins is increasing. once all 21 million have been assigned, then it will become deflationary, as no new coins can ever be created and coins that are lost are lost forever.
bitcoins can be divided into 100 million pieces, so the limit of 21 million coins is not a major stumbling block.
Essentially it's a way to create a decentralised currency with a hard limit on how much is available, ensuring that it cannot be inflated by a central government simply printing more cash or adding some numbers to a computer system.
Cool, I can say it will cost you "2 Bits" and people won't stare at me like I'm some sort of old geezer.
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
Oh that's right... It isn't. But hey, thanks for trying to post something all edgy or controversial or whatever the hell you think it is, kdawson.
No, the Federal Reserve is part of the government. Its chairperson and its governors are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It was created by law but was granted substantial independence from political influence. By and large this is seen by economists as a good thing; independent central banks can fight inflation with more credibility if the major branches of government don't have the power to print money. What money the Fed does make -- profits, that is, after paying its own expenses -- the Fed pays back to the Treasury.
Your analogy to Federal Express is just wrong. You might make an argument for the USPS (at least in a historical context, if not how it exists now), but that is still tenuous. The Fed isn't private in any of the usual aspects: no other shareholders, profits returned to the Treasury, and its management is appointed by the typical President/Senate combo.
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
You can say that all you want, but to quote the Fed itself:
It is part of the government, but independent of the three branches.
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
I'm curious- from the sound of this it would be a great way for botnet herders to turn their victims electricity bills into cash(assuming I can swap my bitcoins for regular pay-my-taxes cash somehow). What measures are in place to prevent this?
If faster computers cause the system to become more complex, thus slowing generation, then wouldn't the older computers become less desirable despite not physically having changed? Mathematically, how would this work out if I created the next "Big Blue", then after joining the network, suddenly I am the only one capable of generating a coin as the bar is raised higher than the peers are capable of reaching??
Good luck with that...
Is by taking it out of circulation. Most of the gold we've mined isn't used for anything, it is simply inspected and then put back underground, only this time in a hole humans dug that we guard. It is artificial scarcity. The gold is there, it could be used, but it isn't because it is "backing" something. So it sits in a vault doing nobody any good.
Also, who says finite is good? What happens when the economy grows to the point that you need more gold, but none is to be had. Well then you start experiencing deflation and that is a very bad thing. Deflation is a wonderful way to get people to stop spending, stop lending, and as such to freeze the economy. Remember: Money is only good if you can spend it. Moreover, money is only good if you DO spend it. If everyone hordes money and doesn't spend it, well then what really is happening is people are refusing to trade. That means the economy stalls.
As you say, gold is only worth what it is because western cultures have an obsession with the shiny stuff and it is used as a hedge. It's real value, in terms of industrial use, is far lower. All those idiots who get gold in preparation for the collapse of society would be sorely disappointed if such a thing ever happened. Gold would be near worthless as it has few uses in a non-industrial society (basically only as decoration) and thus would be worth fuck-all as a currency in a survivalist world. More likely, Metro 2033 has the right answer and bullets would be the closest thing to currency out there (it would mostly just be direct barter).
If there is a hard limit to the total amount of currency that can exist, then what you have is a situation where the currency will not scale with the economy. That means deflation and there's no faster way to kill an economy than that.
To me it seems like the people who created it are the same kind of gold standard 'tards who cry on and on about inflation without understanding it. They see inflation as "eating up your savings" (which is doesn't so long as you put them in an interest bearing account) and thus think deflation would just be great. I mean you have more buying power for doing nothing! Wonderful!
Except it badly fucks over an economy. For one, it simply drives down spending. If you can get something for a dollar today, or two of that something for a dollar next week, it makes sense to wait as long as you can. Non-essential purchases are discouraged since the longer you wait, the more your money gets you. While that sounds like it encourages savings what it really does is screw over trade. Money only works if people spend it. People can have as much money as you want if nobody spends it it is worthless, regardless of the form it takes.
Then there's loans. The ability to make and receive loans goes to hell in a situation of continual deflation. Unless the loan is extremely short term, it won't work. Take a house loan. This is doable because even with minimal to no inflation, you know you can afford it. You know your cost will not go up in percentage terms. However with deflation? No such luck. In a situation of continual deflation, the amount of money you receive for work will go down with time. As such the payments on a loan will be a larger and larger part of income, growing until you can't afford them. To make it work, the loan would have to be offered with a negative interest. But nobody will do that, they'd simply not loan out their money instead as that is a higher rate of return and is guaranteed. Currently people will make loans because the risk of the loan is balanced against having a positive return.
I could go on, but deflation is an extremely bad thing in the long run, and with a fix currency supply you have guaranteed it. Sounds like your project needs less gold standard survivalist geeks and more economists. Tell you what, run your idea by Dr. Gerry Swanson, you get him to sign off on it, maybe I'll reexamine it. As it stands now it sounds like an extremely bad idea just from an economics standpoint, never mind any technical arguments.
I'm trying to get this picture straight: The whole purpose of the blocks and CPU time metric is to get involved with the distribution of the initial set of money, not necessarily that the currency itself necessarily requires massive quantities of computing power.
BTW, it seems like this coin generation issue is something that can be used as an attack vector, and is a different issue than the problems associated with double spending the money. What kinds of safety protocols or protection protocols are in place to keep somebody from simply "minting" money at will?
I don't buy this argument, as found in the PDF file about Bitcoin. Mind you, I'm just skeptical here and not trying to say it is impossible to resolve, but I don't see the protocols or transactional security which is dealing with this issue.
I'm really curious about this particular issue and how a complete copy of the transaction's history doesn't need to be maintained. Again, it gets to the coining of the money issue, where it would seem as if the transaction trace would have to go back to when the money was coined in the first place. Some sort of planned decay of the history certainly could be used in terms of suggesting that after a certain amount of time it can be presumed that a certain bit of transaction history if valid (using a variety of metrics to make that happen that could even go beyond a pure timestamp measurement). Still, the option to view the full transaction history for what fan outs and inputs were associated with that transaction seems like a critical feature.
Well, they were told to stop with their "timeshare" currency (if that's what you are talking about), because the Constitution gives the Federal government exclusive prerogative to mint coins, but that's not why they went to jail.
They went to jail for tax evasion. If you live in America, you have to pay American taxes, even if you make up some phony currency for your transactions. Those people didn't pay their taxes.
I pretty much agree with all of that. Screw those tax cheats.
For some interesting reading The Creature from Jekyll Island gives a good background on the creation of the Fed. It is the type of thing that you don't need a tinfoil hat to think it looks like a conspiracy.
As Forbes magazine Described the founding of the fed : Picture a party of the nation's greatest bankers stealing out of New York on a private railroad car under cover of darkness, stealthily riding hundred of miles South, embarking on a mysterious launch, sneaking onto an island deserted by all but a few servants, living there a full week under such rigid secrecy that the names of not one of them was once mentioned, lest the servants learn the identity and disclose to the world this strangest, most secret expedition in the history of American finance. I am not romancing; I am giving to the world, for the first time, the real story of how the famous Aldrich currency report, the foundation of our new currency system, was written...
When people representing about 1/4 of the world's wealth get together to form a central bank, you know we're going to get screwed.
Under the Federal Reserve system, the value of money is controlled by a US organization that's insufficiently transparent. Under a gold standard the value of money is controlled by international traders and mining cartels. This is better... how?
Gold is "real money". Fine. What people forget is that when you have "real money" and it gets stolen, it's "really gone". That's right. No FDIC insurance for fractions of pennies on the dollar. Instead, theft insurance at rates so high it would effectively negate the inflation protection you seek, plus add administrative costs. Either that, or you roll the dice, but if you get ripped off then... well... see the first part of this paragraph.
Of course, to solve these problems we could centralize the storage of gold and only trade receipts.... followed by... a bunch of other steps tha got us here in the first place.
Another aspect of all this: we are several generations removed from the days when metalic standards prevailed. Today's generation buying into the notion of a metalic fix, has no direct experience with the negative aspects of that system. People in the late 19th and early 20th centuries *did* know what metallic systems were like, and they created what we have now to fix that! Now they're dead, and not around to tell you young whippersnappers what it was like.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
So we have two seemingly contradictory facts about money:
1) We need people to save money. They need to keep some money in reserve, to act as a negative feedback mechanism in the event of problems. When people have savings, they can better deal with problems such as job loss and emergencies. In turn this means they put less burden on public services. Also, when people have savings they feel more confident, even during bad times and continue to spend money. Basically, a healthy savings for all people can eliminate problems like the last downturn where there's a massive crisis of faith and people pull back from spending. It can smooth out the economic bumps. As such it is good not just on a personal level, but on a global level.
2) We need money to move. Money locked in a safe does no good. For money to be useful, it must move around from person to person, business to business. If it sits around, it does nobody any good. If everyone saves a lot and doesn't spend it, well then all they've really done is introduce deflation and hamstring the economy. We need the money moving around, we need it being spent to do any good.
Hmmm... So what to do about that? Well, what about if instead of locking your money in a safe, you instead give it to a bank, and they loan it out to others? Hey, then we have a system where money can be saved, and yet still used at the same time. Your savings go to increase the money supply elsewhere. It multiplies in a very real sense. Wonderful.
However, that doesn't work with deflation. The problem with deflation is, as you noted, loans become hard to afford over long periods of time. That means the only way to make them would be with negative nominal interest. Well that doesn't work, even if the real interest is positive. The reason is that you could do better, and get zero nominal interest, simply by not loaning the money. What's more all loans carry risk, so you wouldn't make a loan, even at zero percent nominal interest because there's a risk you would get repaid and thus no loan still has a higher risk.
Well with inflation, that's not the case. Here your money will lose some value in real terms if you just hang on to it and get zero percent nominal returns. So there is incentive to loan it out, despite taking on some risk. Even if the real return is nothing, you want that. You want your savings to retain their value, so you require a nominal return.
Deflation is just not good for an economy. Large amounts of inflation aren't either. Really a perfectly flat lien might be the best, no inflation or deflation, but that doesn't seem possible. Looking at historical data it doesn't seem like you can hold it steady state. That being the case, a small amount of controlled inflation is by far a better choice than swings back and forth.