BitTorrent Inventor Bram Cohen Will Start His Own Cryptocurrency (torrentfreak.com)

Bram Cohen, the creator of BitTorrent, has showed deep interest in cryptocurrency in the past, and now it looks like he is going to start his own. From a report: Without going into technical details, Cohen believes that Bitcoin is wasteful. He suggests that a cryptocurrency that pins the mining value on storage space rather than processor time will be superior. In an interview with TorrentFreak's Steal This Show, Cohen revealed that his interest in cryptocurrencies is not merely abstract. It will be his core focus in the near future. "My proposal isn't really to do something to BitCoin. It really has to be a new currency," Cohen says. "I'm going to make a cryptocurrency company. That's my plan." By focusing on a storage based solution, BitTorrent's inventor also hopes to address other Bitcoin flaws, such as the 51% attack. "Sometimes people have this misapprehension that Bitcoin is a democracy. No Bitcoin is not a democracy; it's called a 51% attack for a reason. That's not a majority of the vote, that's not how Bitcoin works."

Comments

Retard

[sexconker]

"Sometimes people have this misapprehension that Bitcoin is a democracy. No Bitcoin is not a democracy; it's called a 51% attack for a reason. That's not a majority of the vote, that's not how Bitcoin works."

That's exactly how Bitcoin works.
If you control more than 50% of the nodes storing the blockchain, you can manipulate the currency to your heart's content.
If you do it in such a way that someone notices, people will fork the blockchain. Forking the blockchain has already happened due to other issues. And it went about as smoothly as anyone could have hoped for.

PROTIP: If this new cryptocurrency involves any sort of premine or exclusivity period, it's a scam.

Re:Retard

[GLMDesigns]

wish I had mod points.

This is correct. If you have 51% of the hashing power for a period of time you can double spend (ie spend your bitcoin; take it back and spend it again - the BTC version of counterfitting). Of course if you do that you devaluate the value of BTC

However, BTC is getting too centralized. One of the basic premises behind BTC was that anyone and everyone can mine to one degree or another with their CPU. With the advent of ASICS that's no longer the case.

Only with CPU only hashing (ok, if you insist, GPU only hashing) will Bitcoin come close the ideal that everyone is a node and everyone has a roughly comparable stake.

Even if I have 100,000 CPUs and you only have one we'll be more "equal" than now where you have one CPU versus people with ASIC farms.

Re:Retard

[sexconker]

Owning the network and owning the hash power are separate things.

If you own the network, then you can lie to other nodes about stuff. Other nodes would be like "WTF?" and the network would split. But that's not automatic, and until people can trace back and find out which nodes are janky, you can profit in the chaos.

This sort of attack needs storage and network resources, not computational resources. For a successful attack giving you a usable time window in which to take action, you would want the network to be as distributed as possible.

With hashing power you can "change the order of transactions", sure, but as others have pointed out that means you can spend BTC you don't have, fuck other transactions, etc. This is the attack everyone worries about because the Chinese ASIC farms basically control Bitcoin at this point. But they're not controlled by a single entity and any shenanigans would again be met with a fork.

Missing the point

[Orgasmatron]

Sorry Bram, but you are missing the point. Hashing is used in bitcoin precisely because it is useless. It can't be faked, and it can't be stored for later. It is an irrevocable commitment right now.

I wish you luck with monetizing distributed storage, or decentralized distribution, or whatever your new project ends up as. But the design of bitcoin is not a programming challenge for you to solve. It is a carefully interlocked design, made by someone (or some people) who has (or have) a far beyond average understanding of money and cryptography. Many people with less insight have attempted to "improve" things, and all have failed.

Re:Missing the point

[religionofpeas]

Problem with useful work is that it's hard to adjust the difficulty to arbitrary values. Someone could come up with a really clever way to do protein folding that cuts the CPU time by a factor of 100, and all of a sudden disrupt the currency.

What?

[OverlordQ]

it's called a 51% attack for a reason. That's not a majority of the vote,

Yeah it is, that's the exact definition of majority.

There can be only one

[Oswald McWeany]

Unless things change on the global scare, I don't think there will ever be more than one big-player in the cryptocurrency scene.

Why do people do bitcoin? 1) To operate anonymously outside the system. 2) It is widely recognized as having value by a large enough subset of people to be exchanged.

Whereas #1 can be duplicated, and maybe even improved upon. #2 is going to be difficult. There already IS a cryptocurrency that can be exchanged this way- there doesn't really seem to be much need to create another one, and with BitCoin being so easily exchanged, why would anyone use an alternate crypto currency?

The only way we will see another currency emerge is if it is BETTER than BitCoin in some way (more secure perhaps?) In which case it would REPLACE BitCoin, not supplement it.

There will only ever be one Crypto Currency at a time that is viable.

Ever hear of Dogecoin or any of the others anymore? They get announced but fade out of existence.

Re: Obligatory XKCD

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy shit you're a moron.