That's a fair question. And I suppose historians, may at some point, clash over this.
Bitcoin definitely borrowed from DigiCash (and no I don't think Chaum == Satoshi either).
Bitcoin "borrowed" many ideas and combined them; as a proof of concept it worked; we're just now testing it's ability to adapt and grow in the "real" world.
There are levels of concern. If you, as a vendor, were not concerned at all about double spending attacks then you wouldn't really care if confirmation came in 5 minutes or 50 minutes. But you (as a vendor) must be acutely aware of fraud and must protect yourself. Right now bitcoin is facing a growing pain. Does bitcoin continue being a one size fits all solution or does it focus upon larger transactions in which case there are fewer transaction and in which longer confirmations are of less importance
I think the solution will be to increase the size of the blockchain as well as adopt other methods (lightning) and will continue handling small transactions. The problem that bitcoin is facing is due to it's success. This problem needs to be solved (sooner rather than later) but it's a better problem to face than one in which no one is using bitcoin.
One of bitcoins seemingly fatal shortcomings, as I see it, is that the wallets are MUCH too easy to steal. It has all this transparency and distributed leger to "prove transactions" but lacks any mechanism to prevent theft... and theft has been rampant. From MtGox and other exchanges being wiped clean, to wallet stealing malware going after individuals, etc. You can (rightfully) argue that this isn't a flaw of the bitcoin system and protocol per se... but it IS effectively a flaw of bitcoin in terms of the end user experience.
Mt. Gox is less an issue of insecure wallets than insecure exchanges. (Whether due to incompetence or fraud on the part of the exchange's operators.)
I'm confident in my wallet being secure. I'm less confident that if I die that my wife would ever be able to recover the funds. There is a serious lack of usability in the altcoin world and that is a large part in the resistance to adoption. (Something quite similar to resistance to free software. - Another thread I've been part of here on slashdot).
"Here is this cryptocurrency, I just invented, and me and my friends printed ourselves thousands or millions of the finite number of coins before you even heard about it. You should all use it! T
Re the gold rush mentality. You've made a very interesting point. I don't share it. We all remember bitcoin in the early day when 12,000 bitcoin were used to buy a pizza. If we thought bitcoin would be worth something we all would have grabbed at it and have been all the richer for it. Still. Interesting perspective.
I'm not worried about the schisms. They happen and the schism here with bitcoin is a big one. I can see both sides and it took me a while to choose the side of expanding the size of the blockchain. I understand why so many are conflicted.
Now Microsoft dropping bitcoin. You made a good point
someone has to actively take the steps to turn it off, publish updates, update FAQs etc, etc.
This is an interesting development. Why? The delay in confirmation should not be an issue. A vendor can easily add a day before processing. So why drop bitcoin? I don't know. But I am curious.
there are more crypto currencies than Bitcoin out there... and new ones being developed daily. 30 years from now, will anybody be using bitcoin? Or will it be a "compuserve"?
That's true and in 30 years "Bitcoin" may not be a dominant player and, like Netscape, may cease to exist. And yet it will have played an important role in the creation of the market. If a non-fiat cryptocurrency exists and is a major player 30 years from now then Bitcoin deserves a lions share of the credit. Bitcoin is much more than simply a currency. It's a proof of concept that went viral.
The blockchain works. One can have a distributed ledger; proof of transfer of digital assets; transfer of funds quickly and easily with comparatively no overhead; one can have a digital wallet and bring funds around the world (if you've ever traveled abroad you'll recognize the usefulness).
1 -Its instability.
The fact that there is instability in the value of the exchange rate between bitcoin and fiat currency - how could it not fluctuate wildly at this point? We really do not know the value. Such "knowledge" only comes in time and millions upon millions of transactions. (Or to summon Carl Sagan: "billions upon beellions of transactions.)
Re the gold rush mentality. Whatever. People get excited about many things for many reasons and gold rush fever is, to me, neither good nor bad. Is the value of gold itself diminished to the gold rush mentality of the 19th C miners? Is Apple (the company) diminished because stock investors were motivated by profit?
Now, the schisms- this is a problem. But there are always such problems even if there is a central authority. I've heard MMO fans complain about the directions made by management, complaining that the users weren't listened to. Have you never heard people complain about the direction management has taken a business or country? I certainly have.
Schisms are not a feature of bitcoin or distributed decision making it's a feature of complex scenarios where the "one-clear-choice" does not present itself to the overwhelming majority of those involved.
You make a good point. BUT there is a difference. Linux was much harder to use 15 years ago than it is now. The avg person can use linux now without a problem (provided it's installed for him). As free software packages become easier to install and are as convenient to use as Office (for example). Then people will use them as well.
The car analogy you mentioned would have to include that free software is stick only (no automatic) with no power windows or steering. A few years ago you also had to go the the front of your car and crank start the motor and the perception is still skewed in that direction.
You're preaching to the choir. My point is that the technological barrier with using free software prevents others from using them. As these barriers drop adoption will rise.
Berating friends and family for not using more free software is not the solution. There are many steps in correcting this situation. One of them is simply making people be aware of the reasons to use free software. THEN, as the software becomes easier to adopt they will have both the incentive to switch while no longer being blocked by a technological hurdle.
The issue is consideration and respect for others in a public space. It's not a matter of control - it's a matter of sharing space with others, realizing that, and acting on that knowledge.
re employer not allowing union help. OK. That's part of the free market as well.
The unions in the 1890s and early 20th C would have won many "battles" if the government didn't step in on the side of companies. We would have built a more rational society if that had happened.
Re monopolies - they are very short lived without government intervention. Think about it. Monopolies loose money (and a lot of it) forcing their competition out of business. Then they have to make it up. As the price returns to break even customers (who were happy at the lower prices begin to grumble) then prices have to go far higher to make up for the lost of revenue driving others out of business. Then as the prices skyrocket new competitors enter the fray as they can make an easy profit at the super high price -- and then as supply increases prices drop.
It's very rare for a monopoly to exist for long without government intervention on their behalf.
I'm not saying there isn't a problem with copyright laws. There are many.
I don't think the solution is to eliminate them. They have a place.
My quick solution for copyright infringement lawsuits as per technology is to involve a more technologically literate audience - and many lawyers and judges will not be comfortable with that as many are innumerate and proudly so. (I have sat in many court rooms as a landlord and for business.) As a result the judges involved will need to be technologically literate (a formal education in STEM as well as law.)
I wouldn't call it stupid. Technology isn't their interest and many (free software) systems are not quite user-friendly. As time goes on they are becoming easier to user; easier to install and soon there won't be a technological barrier preventing people from using free software for a lot of what they do.
At that point it will be a philosophical decision as the technological barrier will no longer be in place.
I know PhDs in Biology who can barely tell the difference between a coaxial cable and a power cord.
Private sector unions are part of the free market. What free market person would not agree that workers can band together and set conditions for hiring their labor? Refusing to work (strikes) are part of the free market. That is absolutely part of the free market.
You can belong to a food coop, each individual hating corporations. That would be part of the free market.
A coop created and directed by government employees is NOT part of the free market.
Think about why a free market person (not a corporist) would have issues with labor unions bargaining with elected officials over their compensation.
In Mercantilist / Crony-Capitalist America commerce controls the Government.
In Free Market America neither controls the other.
When Socialists, who of course know better than anyone else how to run their lives, starting instituting more and more controls over commerce it then set the stage for commerce using government to further their needs. Which in turn lead to Crony Capitalism. Who would have thunk it?
Bitcoin is one part of an ecosystem. It need not fill every niche. There are other coins out there beside bitcoin - and there are solutions to the transaction time.
But you do realize, don't you, that this "problem" is a function of bitcoin's success. There is SO much use that not all transactions can be fulfilled quickly enough. I don't see this as a bad problem. A bad problem is lack of use. Too much use can be adapted for.
You don't need to download the full blockchain to buy and spend bitcoin.
If you want to mine bitcoin you do. If you want to have a wallet which references the entire blockchain you do. But there are plenty of light wallets out there which do not download the entire blockchain.
If that was so people couldn't have 60+GB blockchains on theri 16GB phones now could they? And yet there are plenty of mobile wallets out there.
And no using a light-wallet does not defeat the decentralization of bitcoin. You can have both. AND not everyone needs to have both for the blockchain to have value as a distributed resource.
Re forking. Forks happen every day and yet... bitcoin is still around. Now hard forks are not something that should happen often - but they will.
Re lack of adoption. Umm. I guess you've been missing the news about how many major firms have been putting serious funds into developing blockchain technology.
Re difficulty of use. Yup. You have something there. Until it's as easy to use as a debit card it's too complicated. But it will get simpler in time or will never get mass appeal.
Why? The right to privacy is one thing. Establishing credible and traceable reviews are another. I am a huge proponent of privacy and the 4th A (the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures) but that doesn't mean that one can lie and cheat and get away and not get called on it.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a fair question. And I suppose historians, may at some point, clash over this.
Bitcoin definitely borrowed from DigiCash (and no I don't think Chaum == Satoshi either).
Bitcoin "borrowed" many ideas and combined them; as a proof of concept it worked; we're just now testing it's ability to adapt and grow in the "real" world.
Re delay:
There are levels of concern. If you, as a vendor, were not concerned at all about double spending attacks then you wouldn't really care if confirmation came in 5 minutes or 50 minutes. But you (as a vendor) must be acutely aware of fraud and must protect yourself. Right now bitcoin is facing a growing pain. Does bitcoin continue being a one size fits all solution or does it focus upon larger transactions in which case there are fewer transaction and in which longer confirmations are of less importance
I think the solution will be to increase the size of the blockchain as well as adopt other methods (lightning) and will continue handling small transactions. The problem that bitcoin is facing is due to it's success. This problem needs to be solved (sooner rather than later) but it's a better problem to face than one in which no one is using bitcoin.
One of bitcoins seemingly fatal shortcomings, as I see it, is that the wallets are MUCH too easy to steal. It has all this transparency and distributed leger to "prove transactions" but lacks any mechanism to prevent theft... and theft has been rampant. From MtGox and other exchanges being wiped clean, to wallet stealing malware going after individuals, etc. You can (rightfully) argue that this isn't a flaw of the bitcoin system and protocol per se... but it IS effectively a flaw of bitcoin in terms of the end user experience.
Mt. Gox is less an issue of insecure wallets than insecure exchanges. (Whether due to incompetence or fraud on the part of the exchange's operators.)
I'm confident in my wallet being secure. I'm less confident that if I die that my wife would ever be able to recover the funds. There is a serious lack of usability in the altcoin world and that is a large part in the resistance to adoption. (Something quite similar to resistance to free software. - Another thread I've been part of here on slashdot).
"Here is this cryptocurrency, I just invented, and me and my friends printed ourselves thousands or millions of the finite number of coins before you even heard about it. You should all use it! T
Re the gold rush mentality. You've made a very interesting point. I don't share it. We all remember bitcoin in the early day when 12,000 bitcoin were used to buy a pizza. If we thought bitcoin would be worth something we all would have grabbed at it and have been all the richer for it. Still. Interesting perspective.
I'm not worried about the schisms. They happen and the schism here with bitcoin is a big one. I can see both sides and it took me a while to choose the side of expanding the size of the blockchain. I understand why so many are conflicted.
Now Microsoft dropping bitcoin. You made a good point
someone has to actively take the steps to turn it off, publish updates, update FAQs etc, etc.
This is an interesting development. Why? The delay in confirmation should not be an issue. A vendor can easily add a day before processing. So why drop bitcoin? I don't know. But I am curious.
there are more crypto currencies than Bitcoin out there... and new ones being developed daily. 30 years from now, will anybody be using bitcoin? Or will it be a "compuserve"?
That's true and in 30 years "Bitcoin" may not be a dominant player and, like Netscape, may cease to exist. And yet it will have played an important role in the creation of the market. If a non-fiat cryptocurrency exists and is a major player 30 years from now then Bitcoin deserves a lions share of the credit. Bitcoin is much more than simply a currency. It's a proof of concept that went viral.
The blockchain works. One can have a distributed ledger; proof of transfer of digital assets; transfer of funds quickly and easily with comparatively no overhead; one can have a digital wallet and bring funds around the world (if you've ever traveled abroad you'll recognize the usefulness).
1 -Its instability.
The fact that there is instability in the value of the exchange rate between bitcoin and fiat currency - how could it not fluctuate wildly at this point? We really do not know the value. Such "knowledge" only comes in time and millions upon millions of transactions. (Or to summon Carl Sagan: "billions upon beellions of transactions.)
Re the gold rush mentality. Whatever. People get excited about many things for many reasons and gold rush fever is, to me, neither good nor bad. Is the value of gold itself diminished to the gold rush mentality of the 19th C miners? Is Apple (the company) diminished because stock investors were motivated by profit?
Now, the schisms- this is a problem. But there are always such problems even if there is a central authority. I've heard MMO fans complain about the directions made by management, complaining that the users weren't listened to. Have you never heard people complain about the direction management has taken a business or country? I certainly have.
Schisms are not a feature of bitcoin or distributed decision making it's a feature of complex scenarios where the "one-clear-choice" does not present itself to the overwhelming majority of those involved.
What is farcical about bitcoin?
The blockchain?
Proof of transfer of ownership of a digital item?
Electronic commerce?
A distributed ledger?
Or is it the non-fiat money part?
There's a lot to bitcoin. You sound like a someone in the 1990s who calls the internet a toy and that it would never be part of "real" business.
I guess you forgot the part of bitcoin being divisible up to 1/100,000,000 of a bitcoin. (And this can be changed in the future if necessary).
Or are you trolling?
You make a good point. BUT there is a difference. Linux was much harder to use 15 years ago than it is now. The avg person can use linux now without a problem (provided it's installed for him). As free software packages become easier to install and are as convenient to use as Office (for example). Then people will use them as well.
The car analogy you mentioned would have to include that free software is stick only (no automatic) with no power windows or steering. A few years ago you also had to go the the front of your car and crank start the motor and the perception is still skewed in that direction.
You're preaching to the choir. My point is that the technological barrier with using free software prevents others from using them. As these barriers drop adoption will rise.
Berating friends and family for not using more free software is not the solution. There are many steps in correcting this situation. One of them is simply making people be aware of the reasons to use free software. THEN, as the software becomes easier to adopt they will have both the incentive to switch while no longer being blocked by a technological hurdle.
Or I could take my headphones off and blast my music as well. Sh!t why don't we all do that.
hmmm...
Maybe because life would be better if we showed respect to our neighbors instead of being d!cks.
Trolling. Listen to Milton Friedman. Or was he trolling as well?
The issue is consideration and respect for others in a public space. It's not a matter of control - it's a matter of sharing space with others, realizing that, and acting on that knowledge.
re employer not allowing union help. OK. That's part of the free market as well.
The unions in the 1890s and early 20th C would have won many "battles" if the government didn't step in on the side of companies. We would have built a more rational society if that had happened.
Re monopolies - they are very short lived without government intervention. Think about it. Monopolies loose money (and a lot of it) forcing their competition out of business. Then they have to make it up. As the price returns to break even customers (who were happy at the lower prices begin to grumble) then prices have to go far higher to make up for the lost of revenue driving others out of business. Then as the prices skyrocket new competitors enter the fray as they can make an easy profit at the super high price -- and then as supply increases prices drop.
It's very rare for a monopoly to exist for long without government intervention on their behalf.
I'm not saying there isn't a problem with copyright laws. There are many.
I don't think the solution is to eliminate them. They have a place.
My quick solution for copyright infringement lawsuits as per technology is to involve a more technologically literate audience - and many lawyers and judges will not be comfortable with that as many are innumerate and proudly so. (I have sat in many court rooms as a landlord and for business.) As a result the judges involved will need to be technologically literate (a formal education in STEM as well as law.)
No. My bad. I was referring to NYC.
It's illegal to drink in the NYC subway system (although the police will usually give you a break if you are quiet and drinking from a paper bag).
It is legal to drink on the LIRR and Metro-North.
I wouldn't call it stupid. Technology isn't their interest and many (free software) systems are not quite user-friendly. As time goes on they are becoming easier to user; easier to install and soon there won't be a technological barrier preventing people from using free software for a lot of what they do.
At that point it will be a philosophical decision as the technological barrier will no longer be in place.
I know PhDs in Biology who can barely tell the difference between a coaxial cable and a power cord.
No. Don't talk on the phone while the subway. A$$hole. Don't listen to music without headphones.
Get over yourself.
You can drink beer in the MTA but you may not. Meaning that you CAN but it is illegal.
You can however buy and consume alcoholic beverages on the LIRR and Metro North.
No. Let copyright exist for those who want it. Instead start using and promoting Free Software.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/...
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/...
http://askubuntu.com/questions...
Private sector unions are part of the free market. What free market person would not agree that workers can band together and set conditions for hiring their labor? Refusing to work (strikes) are part of the free market. That is absolutely part of the free market.
You can belong to a food coop, each individual hating corporations. That would be part of the free market.
A coop created and directed by government employees is NOT part of the free market.
Think about why a free market person (not a corporist) would have issues with labor unions bargaining with elected officials over their compensation.
In Mercantilist / Crony-Capitalist America commerce controls the Government. In Free Market America neither controls the other.
When Socialists, who of course know better than anyone else how to run their lives, starting instituting more and more controls over commerce it then set the stage for commerce using government to further their needs. Which in turn lead to Crony Capitalism. Who would have thunk it?
Bitcoin is one part of an ecosystem. It need not fill every niche. There are other coins out there beside bitcoin - and there are solutions to the transaction time.
But you do realize, don't you, that this "problem" is a function of bitcoin's success. There is SO much use that not all transactions can be fulfilled quickly enough. I don't see this as a bad problem. A bad problem is lack of use. Too much use can be adapted for.
Crude algorithm? Really.
No ability to react to changing events? Does the piece of paper in your pocket react to daily events. No? Then it's worthless right?
You don't need to download the full blockchain to buy and spend bitcoin.
... bitcoin is still around. Now hard forks are not something that should happen often - but they will.
If you want to mine bitcoin you do. If you want to have a wallet which references the entire blockchain you do. But there are plenty of light wallets out there which do not download the entire blockchain.
If that was so people couldn't have 60+GB blockchains on theri 16GB phones now could they? And yet there are plenty of mobile wallets out there.
And no using a light-wallet does not defeat the decentralization of bitcoin. You can have both. AND not everyone needs to have both for the blockchain to have value as a distributed resource.
Re forking. Forks happen every day and yet
Re lack of adoption. Umm. I guess you've been missing the news about how many major firms have been putting serious funds into developing blockchain technology.
Re difficulty of use. Yup. You have something there. Until it's as easy to use as a debit card it's too complicated. But it will get simpler in time or will never get mass appeal.
Why? The right to privacy is one thing. Establishing credible and traceable reviews are another. I am a huge proponent of privacy and the 4th A (the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures) but that doesn't mean that one can lie and cheat and get away and not get called on it.
you realize he was trolling right?
I doubt he's a "patriot" at all. Just a basement dweller thinking he is accurately portraying the "other" Americans.