Slashdot Mirror


Professors From 7 US Colleges, Including MIT and Stanford, Have Teamed Up To Design a Cryptocurrency Capable Of Processing Thousands of Transactions a Second (fortune.com)

Some of the brightest minds in America are pooling their brain power to create a cryptocurrency that's designed to do what Bitcoin has proved incapable of: processing thousands of transactions a second. From a report: Professors from seven U.S. colleges including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University and University of California, Berkeley have teamed up to create a digital currency that they hope can achieve speeds Bitcoin users can only dream of without compromising on its core tenant of decentralization. The Unit-e, as the virtual currency is called, is the first initiative of Distributed Technology Research, a non-profit foundation formed by the academics with backing from hedge fund Pantera Capital Management LP to develop decentralized technologies.

Bitcoin is the original cryptocurrency and the first payment network to allow parties to transact directly without needing to trust each another or to rely on a central authority. Yet, while it has built a following among developers, anarchists and speculators, mainstream adoption remains elusive. That's in no small part the product of its design, where inbuilt restrictions have constrained its performance and scalability and, as a result, reduced its usefulness as an everyday unit of payment, DTR said in a research paper. The academics are designing a virtual coin they expect will be able to process transactions faster than even Visa.

109 comments

  1. What? by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "non-profit foundation formed by the academics with backing from hedge fund Pantera Capital Management LP"

    Right. Non-profit.

    1. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All they really need to do is decrease the likelihood of an attack. 51% is terribly low. It needs to be closer to 60-70%

    2. Re: What? by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      All they really need to do is decrease the likelihood of an attack. 51% is terribly low. It needs to be closer to 60-70%

      80%, it's the only way to be sure.

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:What? by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      "non-profit foundation formed by the academics with backing from hedge fund Pantera Capital Management LP"

      Right. Non-profit.

      They won't be holding any pre-mined coins. Nope. Not a one.

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you assume there will be any mined coins at all? If they're serious about making a real crypto currency, creating a built in deflation mechanism would be a pretty poor starting premise.

    5. Re: What? by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Interesting

      All they really need to do is decrease the likelihood of an attack. 51% is terribly low. It needs to be closer to 60-70%

      Double spending with bitcoin is harder than just getting 51% of the available CPU power. For it to be effective, you also need to find someone willing to sell you something in exchange for bitcoin, something valuable enough to cover the cost of that much CPU power. Then you need to get them to just give it to you like that, without using an escrow service, without waiting for the payment to settle. Then you need to be sure that this person will not try to get revenge, either through the court or through a hitman. This is a rich person, someone who can afford a hitman.

      Remember that the 51% doesn't allow you to steal people's money: it only allows you rollback transactions that already happened. You still need to figure out how to execute the second half of the scam.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Non profit does not mean unfunded, duh. How did you think churches and their staff were paid for?

    7. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Horizen recently implemented an algorithm to take care of the 51% attack by adding a penalty for delayed chain, thus making it much harder to accomplish the attack.

    8. Re:What? by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      "non-profit foundation formed by the academics with backing from hedge fund Pantera Capital Management LP"

      Right. Non-profit.

      They won't be holding any pre-mined coins. Nope. Not a one.

      Serious question: why wouldn't a bank, which primarily wants to use its blockchain to make secure transactions, start out by loading its network with all the "coins" it wants? The bank, I would have expected, does NOT want new coins in the system. It just wants to use the coins as tokens of data(actual funds) transfers.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    9. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Non profit does not mean unfunded, duh. How did you think churches and their staff were paid for?

      Yep, nonprofit just means that you can't pocket any excess funds and that everything must be spent towards the intended goal.

    10. Re:What? by spiritplumber · · Score: 1

      That's how the venezuelan petro is supposed to work. No idea if it does

      --
      Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
    11. Re: What? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Are many churches funded by hedge funds?

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    12. Re: What? by EndlessNameless · · Score: 2

      I fully expect that anyone with the resources to pull off a 51% attack will have a plan to exploit it before they buy that much compute power.

      You don't get that much money by being stupid. Unless daddy was rich... there are a few cases of that.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    13. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're overthinking it. You don't need to ACTUALLY buy anything. You just need to send a payment to another Bitcoin address. And then do it again. And repeat as many times as you can across as many wallets as you can, and then quickly cash out by exchanging your double-spent Bitcoin for another currency. You could further obfuscate the transactions by making one or more additional transactions on a blockchain that is intended for privacy/anonymity, like Monero (sending and receiving wallet addresses on the blockchain are randomly generated; only the sender and receiver have the necessary keys to view the full details of the transaction). So in essence, you do this:

      Send BTC from wallet1 -> wallet2
      Send BTC from wallet1 -> wallet2
      (repeat as may times as you think you can get away with it)
      Buy XMR with BTC from wallet2 on an exchange
      Send XMR from XMR-wallet1 -> XMR-wallet2
      Cash out XMR for real $$$

      There is plenty of profit to be made by this type of attack, and no one actually had to buy any real product, or avoid any real hitman.

    14. Re: What? by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      Remember that the 51% doesn't allow you to steal people's money: it only allows you rollback transactions that already happened. You still need to figure out how to execute the second half of the scam.

      1) Complete transaction of X merchandise in exchange for cryptocurrency
      2) Roll back transaction
      3) Profit

    15. Re: What? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      So like what, 30,000 boxes of Tide?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    16. Re: What? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      . And repeat as many times as you can across as many wallets as you can, and then quickly cash out by exchanging your double-spent Bitcoin for another currenc

      As soon as you transfer it to cash, the person who does the transferring is going to know your bank account, and going to know who you are.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    17. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The vatican?

    18. Re: What? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      For a similar example in the real world, look into "cornering the market." The concept is simple, it takes a lot of money, people try it, but it's rarely successful.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    19. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats what the mules are used for, plenty of zaps in the world who will fall for the percentage scheme ending up as the ones to blame while the sharks swim on to the next victim

    20. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, nothing shady at all about stuff like this on their website, dtr.org:

      "“Decentralized Payment Systems: Principles and Design”, published in November 2018 by the DTR research collaboration, set out a vision for an academic research program on blockchains to address these technical challenges."

      Just happens NOT to be among the papers linked there.

    21. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By stealing from... sorry, "tything"... the poor and the ignorant using thinly-veiled threats along the lines of "if you don't give us your money my big imaginary friend will make you burn in torment for all eternity, bwahahaha"?

    22. Re:What? by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 1

      That's how the venezuelan petro is supposed to work. No idea if it does

      One could probably make an educated guess based on how well everything else in the Venezuelan economy works.

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
    23. Re: What? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      Hedge funds take people's money and invest it on their behalf (they're expected to pay it back some day). Many religions do the same, except for the paying back part. The Vatican, for example, has an extensive investment portfolio.

    24. Re:What? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Why do you assume there will be any mined coins at all?

      Human nature.

      If they're serious about making a real crypto currency, creating a built in deflation mechanism would be a pretty poor starting premise.

      Who said anything about a deflation mechanism?

      I'm talking about people mining a few coins for their personal retirement funds while it's still easy to do.

      --
      No sig today...
  2. may cause the end of bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it'll be interesting if this causes remaining bitcoin holders to try to sell

  3. Have they not heard of lightning? by mysidia · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't get me wrong.... its a fun experiment to try and come up with new experimental types of blockchains and transactional systems.

    But Bitcoin already has a pragmatic solution called the Lightning Network that uses second-layer networks allowing wallets to safely transact off the chain, resulting in extremely high scalability and low fees --- as a result it is not even limited to "Thousands of transactions per second".... indeed to be a competitor in payment processing, Millions of Transactions per Second may be required ---
    so when you think of scaling; just making a native blockchain capable of thousands of TPS sounds impressive at first, at first, But its really not much in the grand scheme of things --- when you're talking about transitioning from experiment to real-world use.

    Ultimately, layering additional peer-to-peer networks with certain safeguards and no lower bound that says a transaction takes at least X minutes, is a smart approach.

    1. Re: Have they not heard of lightning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that the XYZ argument? All these brains should focus on making the true skynet and avoid all these schemes

    2. Re:Have they not heard of lightning? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But Bitcoin already has a pragmatic solution called the Lightning Network [lightning.network] that uses second-layer networks allowing wallets to safely transact off the chain

      So the solution to the low number of transactions per second on the blockchain is...to *not* use the blockchain?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re: Have they not heard of lightning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello! Thank you for this obvious critical argument. Extra mod points your way just for being you, which is more than good enough in this overhyped slashdot world.

    4. Re:Have they not heard of lightning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Lightning does use the blockchain, but it uses it as a settlement layer which makes a lot more sense than storing everyone's coffee payments on each others computers.

    5. Re:Have they not heard of lightning? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Informative

      Lightning doesn't route - it bases its functionality on open problems in computing. Spend a hour (if you must watch at 1X) on these two to get a good summary of its problems:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    6. Re:Have they not heard of lightning? by matvore9383 · · Score: 2

      It's also worth mentioning that LN enables sharding of the blockchain itself, since it enables atomic swapping of currencies. Let's say in the near future 1 million computers are willing to be a node (blockchain node, not LN node) for a cryptocurrency. If they all stored the same blockchain, that may be more redundancy and security than is necessary. So Bitcoin could fork into say 1000 separate blockchains (similar to Bitcoin Gold and Bitcoin Cash but on a much greater scale). Then 1000 blockchains each get replicated 1000 times. The LN can run on top of those blockchains to smooth out exchanges between the different currencies. Each individual user may only need to hold coins on a half-dozen currencies, the exchange and balancing of which are done automagically. This effectively means the settlement layer has greater capacity and can be used for smaller sums of money. Whereas with only one blockchain (Bitcoin) you may only close out a channel every year (or whatever frequency LN detractors have calculated), with 1000 currencies you could close out multiple times a day.

    7. Re:Have they not heard of lightning? by jythie · · Score: 3, Informative

      Amazing how people end up recreating the same solutions they were trying to move away from, isn't it?

    8. Re:Have they not heard of lightning? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Thousands per second is low multiples of the number of seconds in a day x 1000, say, 2000, or 172,8000,000 transactions a day.

      Which is a lot but woefully inadequate for the world in general.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    9. Re:Have they not heard of lightning? by Guybrush_T · · Score: 2

      While I can't comment on the lightning side, my impression was the same : if you want to design a Bitcoin that actually scales, you'll need much more than thousands of transactions per second.

    10. Re:Have they not heard of lightning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blockchain is only CRC 2.0

    11. Re:Have they not heard of lightning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I imagine most nationwide retailers like walmart, target, starbucks etc do 1K/second by themselves. I wonder what Amazon does, 10K? Black friday brings down websites. What does that take?

    12. Re:Have they not heard of lightning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's bullshit.

      Lightning is an exchange. An unregulated bank. The "settlement layer" is just their internal processing system.

      They'll be hacked or exit scammed just like all the others.

    13. Re:Have they not heard of lightning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The use of Bitcoin in the Lightening network is entirely superfluous and could invisibly be replaced by any settlement layer, including non-blockchain ones. LN essentially replaces the BT network (to be priced out of reach of 99% of people) with a centralized network having a very different behaviour than BT had.

    14. Re: Have they not heard of lightning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Thatâ(TM)s some amazing reality bending going on there. Falkvinge is apparently a very skilled politician and persuator.

    15. Re:Have they not heard of lightning? by jythie · · Score: 1

      Eh, not really. If one is going to use lightnight, one might as well just go back to ACH. Lightning's technical solution might be novel, but the final result is not.

  4. Use fuzzy logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A cryptocurrency for non-binary people, unlike BITcoin..

  5. NIce name by Misagon · · Score: 1

    Would I be able to pay with Unit-e to purchase Unity-engine based games on my Unity desktop?

    --
    "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
  6. So, like Ripple but with no users? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Ripple is already the most-used cryptocurrency for cross-border payments (DAG-based) with years of R&D and partnerships with major banks and corporations around the world.

    It'll be a steep hill to climb to get something out of the Ivory Tower to compete. This would have been cutting edge six years ago, though.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:So, like Ripple but with no users? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ripple is not a stablecoin, and is still only considered experimental by those who use it. Banks abandoned the project months ago saying that crypto had no place in the modern banking system.

    2. Re:So, like Ripple but with no users? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, Ripple isn't even a cryptocurrency. It's more like Airline Points in that you can't run your own fully validating node, it's not trustless, and it's terms and supply can be altered by Ripple Inc. for whatever reason they deem fit. Why would you need a blockchain for that?

    3. Re:So, like Ripple but with no users? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ripple has some serious issues, for instance the company and founders still holding over half of the total coins, and they have the ability to freeze the network or an individual account. Ripple isn't fully decentralized; parts of it are firmly under control of Ripple Labs.

      Many banks have used Ripple, but in most cases the purpose was to experiment, with Ripple being a convenient mechanism to manage transactions and settlement outside of the banks' own bloated and antiquated systems which lend themselves poorly to experimentation.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    4. Re:So, like Ripple but with no users? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are good things if you trust Ripple Labs.

    5. Re:So, like Ripple but with no users? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      These are good things if you trust Ripple Labs.

      There is absolutely zero reason to trust Ripple Labs, just as there is zero reason to trust banks. I don't trust banks or bankers at all, but I trust the FDIC.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:So, like Ripple but with no users? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Ripple is already the most-used cryptocurrency for cross-border payments

      Are you sure?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:So, like Ripple but with no users? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XRP is just digital fiat

    8. Re:So, like Ripple but with no users? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazing, so it’s a different kind of bank. Totally worth it.

  7. Re:cryptocurrency is so last year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This

  8. Get in NOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'm selling ALL my bitcoin, gold bullion and Infowars.com shares to buy in now, and anyone who isn't a libtard should do the same. This is a guaranteed investment, backed by MIT, Slashdot and the full force of the US military.

  9. Tenet! Tenet! Tenet!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless someone is living within the Bitcoin, it should be "core tenet of decentralization."

    1. Re:Tenet! Tenet! Tenet!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks. It boggles the mind that people capable of the kind of math needed for modern software are unable to spell.

  10. Probably not though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The prime suspect for causing the demise of bitcoin is bitcoin itself. The show is run by a bunch of fractious idiots* that keep on forking the thing into oblivion.

    If it wasn't for that, this initiative wouldn't stand a chance. But it does occur to me that these bigwigs are very late indeed to the game. I suspect the only reason it exists is someone decided or got convinced to throw money at it, so it's a pork barrel. Eventual results will be incidental. I think it's at least as likely to fizzle with a conclusion "nope, better than bitcoin can't be done, honest". Because there are large interests in having a mess like the current, though some indubitably will prefer more tracking and less pseudonimity.

    * And according to some, suspected government stooges. Hanlon's razor tells me to hold off on that conclusion until clear evidence says otherwise.

  11. Krypto Kurrency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keystone Kops.

  12. Why is this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is Cryptocurrency even remotely a tech issue?

    News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters my ass!

  13. Thousands of transactions a second by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Visa alone is capable of processing 56,000 transactions per second.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Thousands of transactions a second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My reaction: Seriously, they are only working on transaction scaling now? How many years has it been that we've seen e-currencies, and they are only working on high volume now??

      Oh, I know. They didn't know it would actually be used. By more than 4 guys in their Moms' basements.
      Oh, I know. Only tey 'blockchain' mattered until now. You know, buzzwordy stuff.
      Oh, I know. All those 'researchers' working on e-currencies, they were busy reheating their croissants, polishing their elevator pitches, and developing a draft script based upon a 'cute, edgy, somewhat dark e-currency researcher, who finds love, gets rich, and sticks it to the cabal of evil central bankers'.
      Oh, I know. Everyone assumed that Satoshi Nakamoto, an anonymous person who may or may not even be real, fixed the scaling problem. Because he's really smart, and everyone totally knows him and trusts him. He's a stand-up guy. Really!

      Geezus, I've been skeptical of the e-currencies all along but this really takes the cake. These people hyping e-currencies are like some huckster selling enterprise software and services out of a Radio Flyer wagon.

    2. Re:Thousands of transactions a second by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      These people hyping e-currencies are like some huckster selling enterprise software and services out of a Radio Flyer wagon.

      That's kind of an accurate analogy.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  14. "Tennant"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "without compromising on its core tenant of decentralization"

    Shouldn't that be "tenet" or is my English not as good as I think it is?

    1. Re:"Tennant"? by MightyMait · · Score: 1

      Dang! Wasn't signed in, so I don't get credit for this (my first comment it quite a while).

      --
      Nothing interesting to say...MUST...NOT...REPLY...ohtheheckwithit.
    2. Re:"Tennant"? by JoeDuncan · · Score: 1

      Why would WANT credit for pointlessly being a dick?

      You obviously understood what was meant, as you were able to fill in the correction yourself and extract the proper meaning.

      Unless you are *actually confused* about what someone said/typed, pointing out their grammar/spelling mistakes is just an attempt to make yourself feel superior to a random stranger.

      In short, it makes YOU a dick!

    3. Re:"Tennant"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So, you propose we let people continue to misuse the language without helpfully correcting them? That sounds pretty dickish to me.

      As for why I would want credit, it's more about auditing my own contributions (or lack thereof to Slashdot). If I'm signed-in, I have a record of all my comments.

      Hope your day improves, as you seem to be a bit irritable at the moment.

    4. Re:"Tennant"? by MightyMait · · Score: 2

      Crap! Wasn't signed-in again.

      --
      Nothing interesting to say...MUST...NOT...REPLY...ohtheheckwithit.
    5. Re:"Tennant"? by omnichad · · Score: 2

      Not pointless. Stop encouraging the world to be morons.

    6. Re:"Tennant"? by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, you can still get credit for exemplifying Muphry's Law. (Or perhaps there's an obscure reference to a Doctor Who actor that I don't get.)

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    7. Re:"Tennant"? by MightyMait · · Score: 1

      Ha ha ha ha!! That's rich. Thanks for introducing me to that law. :)

      --
      Nothing interesting to say...MUST...NOT...REPLY...ohtheheckwithit.
  15. Here are the researchers by swillden · · Score: 2

    When I read the summary I wondered whether the researchers involved had a track record of interesting work in this area, or in cryptography more generally. It took some searching but I found the list of names here: https://dtr.org/research/#rese....

    FWIW, neither I nor my academic cryptographer friends immediately recognized any of these people. I do see that Andrew Miller is on the ZCash board, which gives him some credibility in my book.

    That I don't recognize them doesn't mean that much, but I'd be more inclined to follow this work closely if it were done by people with a solid track record in the space. Time will tell.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    1. Re:Here are the researchers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, you're right. it doesn't mean anything. move along

    2. Re:Here are the researchers by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      I'm impressed that they actually have a macroeconomist.

  16. Professors, NOT the Universities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a hedge fund tax shelter where these professors will be working (probably during their university-paid time). This is NOT an initiative that is sponsored officially by those universities. One could take care to understand this is just yet another attempt at a lucrative ICO, and will likely end up being just another pump-and-dump like every other ICO has been so far.

  17. Sidechains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You've re-invented sidechains.

  18. Ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's amazing is how the ignorant get modded up so quickly.

  19. Transaction Volume is only one problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Visa processes over 1,600 transactions per second and that is only a fraction of the global market. If the intent to create a global decentralized currency is realized they will need to exceed 10 times Visa's volume. This is just one of the issues.

    One of Crypto's big claims is that the transactions are irreversible... but that is not a benefit to someone who's been defrauded or the victim of theft. Every time there is a multi-million crypto heist the market tanks. This is because no one wants to think of themselves as a victim in those cases.

    Decentralized won't work in a lawful society... If you don't want to pay child support, alimony, or pay back what you stole in the example above? With no central authority to force you to pay the most they can do is attempt to blacklist your crypto account which won't work in a decentralized system, there will always be someone who willing to take your money.

    Fixed monetary supply doesn't work in the real world... the population grows, and the need for cash grows with it. A fixed monetary supply will almost guarantee deflation at some point which is even more devastating to an economy than moderate inflation.

    1. Re:Transaction Volume is only one problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. As somebody who isn't ideologically bent about my currency, there's no incentive for me to use crypto. In fact, there's a built-in disincentive because of switching costs. Switching anything is a negative value proposition for the end user. It's like asking Linux users to switch distros. You can accomplish all the same tasks, but you'll spend a few days getting used to the new system and gaining nothing.

      The biggest problem with crypto is security/insurance. It simulates "real money" like gold. The problem with any kind of real money, or simulation thereof is that when your money is gone, it's *really* gone.

      The incumbent system has a vast legacy of built-in insurance and security based on lessons that were sometimes learned the hard way. It isn't perfect, but it's got centuries of lead time on the competition.

      There would have to be glaring problems with the incumbent system to make us want to switch, and there simply aren't. The only people who think there are, are people who are ideologically bent. They're willing to spend their time worshiping at the altar of crypto because it's their religion.

  20. Not acceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a number of other people have said to me: "There is no reason to encrypt a currency unless you want to be able to track everything they spend it on and that is a tool of tyranny that can easily be abused; it's none of their business where, when and how I spend my money, and the IRS has too much power already.

    Crypto currency is the biggest threat to freedom we have ever had, and any entity that even attempts to force it's use will be viewed as the aggressor in a military attack and it mandates a military response upon them."

    1. Re: Not acceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, an encrypted currency is worthless.

      Bitcoin however is not encrypted. Transactions are made in the open and then other machines are asked to verify that transaction. If I send 2 BTC to wallet A from wallet B at date X, this creates an equation. Every other computer is asked to verify this equation, and once verified the transaction is performed.

      Thus based on public key signing, which is related to encryption but not the same.

  21. No details in TFA by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    it sounds like it's just something a bunch of guys want to do. They're smart guys, so maybe they'll do it, but they need to solve not just speed but power usage. Water & Electricity are both heavily subsidized. When you start using a ton of power and produce basically nothing for the local communities they're gonna notice. Bitcoin miners were starting get draw flack until the crash happened and slowed everything down.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  22. Majority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are trading trusting a central authority with a majority vote authority. Is that really any better? I guess the upside is you can't blame anyone in particular when your money is lost.

  23. Bitcoin transaction limit is artificial. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The transaction limit of 3-7 transaction/second is an artificial one created because the original creators, years and years ago,who worried about spam, so they put in a block size limit. The intention was always to increase it as they learned more about how the network could scale.

    That limit has since become an entrenched position. It in fact lead to a fork in bitcoin to Bitcoin Cash, which has a 32 MB limit. There's further work being done to increase this limit.

  24. But, it does mean something. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The summary starts off with "Some of the brightest minds in America are pooling their brain power". Well, nobody knows anything about these people...

  25. Oh goodie, another cryptocurrency... by CharlesAKAChuck · · Score: 1

    Just what we needed. Now all of Earth's problems are solved.

    1. Re:Oh goodie, another cryptocurrency... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://xkcd.com/927/

  26. It's a protocol, not an institution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Lightning Network is a network of computers communicating via a well-defined protocol.

    What are you blathering on about?

    1. Re: It's a protocol, not an institution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been hearing about how this protocol will change bitcoin since 2016. Where the fuck is it already?

    2. Re:It's a protocol, not an institution by sexconker · · Score: 1

      He's "blathering" about the obvious fact the using Lightning is no different than trading in ETH for SomeShitCoin on Ethereum.

      It's a fucking scam riding on top of Bitcoin, with the full backing and support of "trust us". You give them your Bitcoin, and you get a credit in Lightning. You have to fully trust those clowns and all the clowns using Lightning, and trust that you'll get your BTC back before Lightning goes tits up. That's all ON TOP of having to trust BTC. (Though the simple fact is BTC is essentially unassailable.)

    3. Re: It's a protocol, not an institution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iâ(TM)m sorry, but I think you misunderstand how lightning works.
      You donâ(TM)t give anything to anyone for a âoecreditâ. Two keys are used to lock coins until either of the keys are used to unlock it (with different functions to make it less gameable). As long as the coins are locked, they can be sent around the whole lightning network, and when they are unlocked the latest settlement will be written to the main blockchain.
      So as you can see, itâ(TM)s always Bitcoin and never changes from that. The only thing that changes is the transport layer.

  27. Still No Cure For Cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FUCK those 7 profs for their useless waste of time & resources aiding a bullshit Chinese project to move money out of the reach of Poohbear.

    FUCK THEM ALL.

  28. Re:What? (Easy prosecution for counterfeiting!) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I note the following...

    US Constitution Article I Section 8: "Congress shall have the power ... To coin Money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures". Um, These entities are not Congress, nor does this US-based Cryptocurrency have Congressional Approval.

    US Constitution Article I Section 10: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit..." and again, these entities are in US States, but not Congress.

    The US government couldn't really crack down on Bitcoin because it was decentralized, and multiple hardware vendors were making drivers and processing so that users would de-facto distributed computing mine for Cryptocurrency... but it's failing in its own way including others stealing Bitcoins from accounts. This is CENTRALIZED among professors and a hedge fund.

  29. well, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    at least mitcoin rhymes with bitcoin

  30. How about EOS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://coincodex.com/article/2052/eos-achieves-3000-transactions-per-second/

  31. So They Gave Up On Bitcoin Finally!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This means, it is now official that bitcoin (& not to mention all other existing cryptocurrencies) are completely useless/worthless!!!
    (If not, then, why they are trying to create yet another cryptocurrency, if any other is also okay???)

  32. Better, stronger, faster..... by btpowers · · Score: 1

    The Red Belly blockchain is reported to handle 600,000 transaction per second. It was developed at the University of Sydney's school of information technologies.

  33. Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not how it works.

    Slashdot is the dregs.

  34. At least one of the ZCash guys was also an I2P guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is part of why I don't have respect for them anymore.

    I2P is currently sitting on a few million in virtual currency donations.

    ZCash, in an even sleazier bid than premined coins, made all blocks generated for the first X blocksplits give 10 percent of the coin value to the developers wallet. I actually ran it on CPU mining during the initial pre-release period and never saw a single successful solution, despite 2-3 months of mining. During this time the I2P development was fully ignored, and as it turned out the only real development had been taking place by a third party dev who the I2P project head was mad at (some cucked SJW man who allowed a CoC to be rammed through because his feelings had been hurt, while not offering anything significant back to the project.) They've since been removing that third party person's contributions while doing questionable UI replacement design.

    Not sure if it is the same guy or group of people working on this new project, but I wouldn't trust it much. ZCash ended up being just as ponzi-ish as bitcoin was, and it hasn't really brought anything new to the table. The final darknet exchange on I2P is shutting down as well due to lack of demand.

  35. So, has all the weakness of Bitcoin plus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    allows for all the cash to be stolen thousands of times quicker! This is exactly what the crypto currency guys have been demanding since it takes too long to run their pump and steal scams now. This could cause a resurgence in this criminal sub-genre.

  36. Too slow, but a serious improvement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To get accpeted by the general public, the transactions would need to support 1E6/second. Or more!!
    But an improved (from current)rate of 1e5 is a VERY nice start

  37. Your mind is a nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please, tell me you're not a lawyer.

  38. Constitution restricts Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Constitution of the United States is unique in that it restricts government, not The People.

  39. Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Grin was launched using MimbleWimble tech.

  40. WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where do you people come from?

    It uses BTC, and is based around actual Bitcoin transactions.

  41. *WHOOSH* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The OP's point flew way over your head.