Live data from Hacker News

What Bitcoin’s White Paper Got Right, Wrong and What We Still Don’t Know (2018)

coindesk.com

191–200 of 224 posts

Re: What Bitcoin’s White Paper Got Right, Wrong and What We Still Don’t Know (2018)

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin Cash is what we call Bitcoin now. Lighting is obvious vaporware nonsense that solves only the problem of how to keep Blockstream in control of the GitHub repo they (Adam Back and Greg Maxwell) hijacked years ago.

> Bitcoin Cash is what we call Bitcoin now Really? The market begs to differ.

BTC limitation of SegWit/LN stole the Bitcoin brand name and the decade long Plan-B narrative from BCH's block upgrade, Schnorr signature, 0-conf(without Replace-By-Fee).

Bitcoin Cash market cap of ~$4.8B is good enough for it to be used as P2P Electronic Cash System that Bitcoin was built for.

Re: What Bitcoin’s White Paper Got Right, Wrong and What We Still Don’t Know (2018)

#192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2017-18 when it became apparent that the bitcoin network was unsuitable That's an extraordinary statement. The scaling aspects of Bitcoin was apparent to everyone involved in the project from the start, including Satoshi. The limits of an architecture where everyone processes everyone else's transactions should be obvious to anyone reading the whitepaper. It is also the focus of the very first email replies. Few re…

Seriously. Like an append, write only database is going to scale. Contemporarily, lightning is a thing that covers most of the gripes that I've seen above your comment.

Historically, there has been a number of ideas proposed. Many different variants of subchains and sidechains, different types of payment channels, ecash systems and so on.

The idea that someone discovered these in 2017 seems oblivious to what actually happened. Support for payment channels with nLockTime was likely influential for implementing transactions with smart contracts in the first place. It was there from the first Satoshi release, and payment channels was described already in 2013. It probably wasn't first on the list of things to fix as long as transactions were heavily subsidized by inflation.

Re: What Bitcoin’s White Paper Got Right, Wrong and What We Still Don’t Know (2018)

#193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is correct. Gold is the original “it’s valuable because everyone agrees it is,” and retains that first mover advantage. Over the centuries there have been numerous challengers. Almost all (silver being a notable exception) failed.

Indeed. That does not negate its base value even in barter. (Though it's much lower.) And especially items made with the use of gold can get really worthwhile - such as semiconductor chips... So in a funny indirect way, Bitcoin is tied to gold. Both of which are tied to specific costs of labour. Bitcoin however requires a lot of expensive infrastructure to run to be worth anything. (Esp. networking, required to ensur…

The whole state is required for printed cash to be worth anything. I doubt it's cheaper in any comparison.

Re: What Bitcoin’s White Paper Got Right, Wrong and What We Still Don’t Know (2018)

#194

I believe BitCoin is one of the very few successful crypto protocols that, instead of being developed in the open, pretty much came out fully formed. In addition, it was developed first as a Windows program. This makes the conspiracy part of me, suspect that BitCoin may in fact have been developed by the NSA to enable moving black ops money around more easily. It was released to the public so there would be enough ba…

Who the hell moves black ops money in open public ledger like bitcoin's blockchain is. It is easier to launder money though banks than bitcoin because bank transactions are not public and hence under less scrutiny. Bitcoin was made by still unknown C++ programmer and computer science enthusiast.

1) The US owns the SWIFT network and monitors transactions globally.

2) During the Falklands War, Argentina was prevented from buying munitions since South American banks were monitored for transactions with Europe. Like any bureaucracy, once they used a bank, they never moved to a new one after a transaction.

Re: What Bitcoin’s White Paper Got Right, Wrong and What We Still Don’t Know (2018)

#195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Picking arbitrary dates is fun and all, but we are bootstrapping a new financial system. Do you see a way to do that without volatility?

I don't blame Bitcoin for being volatile. I just don't see how its volatility is consistent with the claim that it represents an innovation in protection against inflation.

Again, we are bootstrapping a financial system. Volatility is to be expected. Volatility will decrease with time (lindy effect, adoption, etc.) as it has from the beginning. In the asymptotic target state, btc is the only true scarce asset in the world, uncensorable and with instant global transfers.

Re: What Bitcoin’s White Paper Got Right, Wrong and What We Still Don’t Know (2018)

#196

A lot of our associates in Russia prefer to use bitcoin over rubles. They say that it's less vulnerable to the Russian government's currency manipulation schemes. Is that really true though?

Well, Russians doing "Internet business" have used products like e-gold for a couple decades, so no big surprise they're happily using bitcoin now.

Mainly they need some method to transfer from the West to Russia, and they're sophisticated about managing risk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-gold

Re: What Bitcoin’s White Paper Got Right, Wrong and What We Still Don’t Know (2018)

#197
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only an archive node needs to keep a copy of the entire chain. But every full node needs to download and verify all of it, so it's more a question of bandwidth and time. It would be nice to be able to so within a day.

That's interesting, thank you. As a quick calculation, the bitcoin blockchain recently[0] reached 300 GB which, spread over a day, would require a download speed of 27.8 MBit/s. For comparison, "the global average download speed on fixed broadband is 85.73 Mbps as of September 2020"[1] so even if block sizes were triple their historic values it would still be possible for average global users to wait less than a day…

Initial sync up of a full node doesn't need all 300 GB of chain history to be downloaded/validated.

A pruned state can be downloaded with no more trust assumptions than that required to trust the software distribution channel where you download the Bitcoin software from to actually serve Bitcoin.

Anyway, every one in the world doesn't need to run a full node. Even a few thousand geographically distributed full nodes is enough to offer resistance to network shut down, and there are more than a few million people that are capable of running a full node of a hypothetical Bitcoin with 1 GB sized blocks, which only requires downloading 1.67 MB/s of transactions to keep up with validation. That's a 1000 expansion of Bitcoin's throughput, letting Bitcoin become the world's most widely used currency.

The entire small block narrative is built on a shaky foundation that ignores the massive benefits of enabling more people to transact directly on the Bitcoin blockchain.

Re: What Bitcoin’s White Paper Got Right, Wrong and What We Still Don’t Know (2018)

#198
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of bitcoin as a store of value and not a currency is a revisionist interpretation that became popular with the blockstream devs around 2017-18 when it became apparent that the bitcoin network was unsuitable for handling payments at scale and had fees too high to be useful for mundane payments.

Exactly! The first sentence from the original white paper is literally: "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution." Bitcoin was intended to be MONEY, instead it's pretty fucking useless for anything other than hoarding. I think it will remain an asset class, but history will not be kind to i…

Bitcoin is the first successful project which achieved digital scarcity. Scarcity is one of the most important features in assigning value to a particular object. Bitcoin's scarcity is not only proven, but also completely transparent and trackable. Its scarcity does not rely on any centralized organization, it is completely based on mathematics and cryptography.

It may not have been apparent how ground-breaking or important digital scarcity was at the time. Most of the time when we think of money, we think about how we use it in our everyday lives. We buy coffees, we pay for an Uber. But underneath all that, there is a deeper meaning to money. Why do we value money? It really just boils down to scarcity, liquidity, demand.

Money has all 3. However, the scarcity factor of traditional money is flawed. It relies on centralized parties, for which money is not actually scarce. They can and do alter the supply at any time. It's a tradeoff we make because fiat is so liquid / demanded / transactable.

Bitcoin is less transactable than fiat money in most regards, but it makes up for it in the transparency of its scarcity. If you were going to lock your wealth up for 25 years, would you put it in USD or BTC? More and more people would say BTC. I can tell you how many BTC will exist in the year 2050. I would have no way to do the same for any fiat currency.

The main risk to BTC is some sort of technological breakthrough which greatly improves upon the concept of cryptocurrency. It's not that cryptocurrency will suddenly disappear or lose its value. Cryptocurrency is here to stay. We have witnessed the birth of a new asset class.

Re: What Bitcoin’s White Paper Got Right, Wrong and What We Still Don’t Know (2018)

#199
post #181
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can do proof of work based on random memory access for example rather than pure computation. The monetary cost ends up being identical, but it’s much better for the environment.

>but it’s much better for the environment. Why? If OPEX is reduced (lower electricity costs), it's logical to assume that it will be replaced with CAPEX, given how competitive mining operations are. If that's the case, that will mean electricity being used to power ASICs being replaced with chemicals required to fab semiconductors (along with electricity for those fabs). It might be better in terms of GHG emissions,…

Thinking about environmental issues abstractly aka energy vs chemicals doesn’t give you a basis for comparison. You need to dig into the details. In a green world you’re comparing X square feet of solar panels + Batteries with building RAM and environmentally building more RAM is less damaging.

Re: What Bitcoin’s White Paper Got Right, Wrong and What We Still Don’t Know (2018)

#200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's interesting, thank you. As a quick calculation, the bitcoin blockchain recently[0] reached 300 GB which, spread over a day, would require a download speed of 27.8 MBit/s. For comparison, "the global average download speed on fixed broadband is 85.73 Mbps as of September 2020"[1] so even if block sizes were triple their historic values it would still be possible for average global users to wait less than a day…

Initial sync up of a full node doesn't need all 300 GB of chain history to be downloaded/validated. A pruned state can be downloaded with no more trust assumptions than that required to trust the software distribution channel where you download the Bitcoin software from to actually serve Bitcoin. Anyway, every one in the world doesn't need to run a full node. Even a few thousand geographically distributed full nodes…

> A pruned state can be downloaded with no more trust assumptions than that required to trust the software distribution channel where you download the Bitcoin software from to actually serve Bitcoin.

Nonsense. Bitcoin software releases come with widely publicized checksums and signatures from reputable sources.

Post reply on HN