Live data from Hacker News

The Quora post that killed Bitcoins. Please discuss if his arguments are valid.

b.qr.ae

21–30 of 324 posts

Re: The Quora post that killed Bitcoins. Please discuss if his arguments are valid.

#21
post #14

I would love to see a currency like this work, and I would be interested in using one, but the major issue for bitcoin, for me, is that deflation is built into its core. Inflation is a good thing. Inflation encourages holders of capital to use it to invest in other things. That is, inflation encourages productivity. The inflation has to be relatively low, of course. Probably low enough to allow someone to retire with…

An inflationist currency is great if you are deep in debt or like cheap consumer credit.

Deflation (or really constant value) means that those who save, build things and invest wisely will benefit.

And no, I am not going to starve today, so that I can get marginally more bread a year from now.

Re: The Quora post that killed Bitcoins. Please discuss if his arguments are valid.

#22
I think the other article (http://apenwarr.ca/log/?m=201105) written about bitcoin failing is more detailed and contains potentially more plausible ways of how bitcoin can fail. The openwarr article refers to potential failures with the SHA256 backbone of bitcoins.

"With bitcoin, a single failure of the cryptosystem could result in an utter collapse of the entire financial network. Unlimited inflation. Fake transactions. People not getting paid when they thought they were getting paid. And the perpetrators of the attack would make so much money, so fast, that they could apply their fraud at Internet Scale on Internet Time.)"

IANA cryptography expert. Is this feasible in the way the author predicts? Could SHA256 be cracked quickly, a la MD5? My gut is that it won't be able to, but I can't back up my argument.

Re: The Quora post that killed Bitcoins. Please discuss if his arguments are valid.

#23
post #18

When he showed the graph of the number of tweets vs the number of bitcoins he lost me. This is an apples and oranges comparison. http://bitcoinreport.blogspot.com/2011/01/bitcoin-transactio... It's just FUD.

What he wanted to point to with the twitter stats is the concept of exponential growth of economic (and most other complex) systems.

Re: The Quora post that killed Bitcoins. Please discuss if his arguments are valid.

#24
post #15

As an zeroHedge reading, armchair economist i think there are a lot of flaws in that guys argument "Bitcoin does not have a central bank capable of printing and lending bitcoins" >>I rather think thats the point. Lending is inflationary. "Built in Deflation" >> God knows how the computer industry makes money when if i hold my $$$ just a little longer, i can buy an even better machine. "For Bitcoin to work as a curren…

"God knows how the computer industry makes money when if i hold my $$$ just a little longer, i can buy an even better machine" Not really. Because if you expect the value of your cash to rise, you would probably hold onto your cash. The liquidity of the system would drop as people hoard their cash (what happened during the Great Depression), depressing an economy. "bank run" He's talking about the need to inject cash…

> Because if you expect the value of your cash to rise, you would probably hold onto your cash.

Right, that's why the computer industry doesn't make any money.

> This, again, happened during the Great Depression

Yes. A large part of what made the Great Depression last much longer than the Depression of 1920-1921 was that insolvent businesses were given money instead of being allowed to fail. One might compare this to recent events, and have a look at the present employment rate of the U.S. population: http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?get_gallerynr=1631

Re: The Quora post that killed Bitcoins. Please discuss if his arguments are valid.

#25
post #15

As an zeroHedge reading, armchair economist i think there are a lot of flaws in that guys argument "Bitcoin does not have a central bank capable of printing and lending bitcoins" >>I rather think thats the point. Lending is inflationary. "Built in Deflation" >> God knows how the computer industry makes money when if i hold my $$$ just a little longer, i can buy an even better machine. "For Bitcoin to work as a curren…

"God knows how the computer industry makes money when if i hold my $$$ just a little longer, i can buy an even better machine" Not really. Because if you expect the value of your cash to rise, you would probably hold onto your cash. The liquidity of the system would drop as people hoard their cash (what happened during the Great Depression), depressing an economy. "bank run" He's talking about the need to inject cash…

I think you are missing his point about the computer industry. If you wait, you can buy a better computer for the same amount of money as you would originally have. Alternatively, you could buy the same computer for less money. This is the equivalent of your money going up in value (as in you have more buying power). His argument is that if we use the author's logic, people would want to wait to get a new computer instead of buying one now. This is obviously not the case and so his argument is flawed. I agree with the poster and disagree with the author; the poster found the perfect analogy.

Re: The Quora post that killed Bitcoins. Please discuss if his arguments are valid.

#26
post #22

I think the other article ( http://apenwarr.ca/log/?m=201105 ) written about bitcoin failing is more detailed and contains potentially more plausible ways of how bitcoin can fail. The openwarr article refers to potential failures with the SHA256 backbone of bitcoins. "With bitcoin, a single failure of the cryptosystem could result in an utter collapse of the entire financial network. Unlimited inflation. Fake transac…

I'm definitely not a crypto expert, but the way I read it was simply that if sha256 gets defeated, bitcoin is screwed.

I don't so why it couldn't be defeated, most of the other crypto systems which were going to last us for centuries got defeated..

Re: The Quora post that killed Bitcoins. Please discuss if his arguments are valid.

#27
post #15

As an zeroHedge reading, armchair economist i think there are a lot of flaws in that guys argument "Bitcoin does not have a central bank capable of printing and lending bitcoins" >>I rather think thats the point. Lending is inflationary. "Built in Deflation" >> God knows how the computer industry makes money when if i hold my $$$ just a little longer, i can buy an even better machine. "For Bitcoin to work as a curren…

"God knows how the computer industry makes money when if i hold my $$$ just a little longer, i can buy an even better machine" Not really. Because if you expect the value of your cash to rise, you would probably hold onto your cash. The liquidity of the system would drop as people hoard their cash (what happened during the Great Depression), depressing an economy. "bank run" He's talking about the need to inject cash…

> Because if you expect the value of your cash to rise, you would probably hold onto your cash.

So why don't you? By that logic, you don't own a computer. There has not been a single minute for the past thirty years when it was not an invariant that if you wait a little longer, you can get a better computer, or more lately, mobile phone or *pad-device for the same (or, not rarely, less). Yet, these items sell like hotcakes.

When deflation is temporary, yes, then it's true - but when the deflation is constant, it's not.

Re: The Quora post that killed Bitcoins. Please discuss if his arguments are valid.

#28
post #9
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me Bitcoin is more like Gnutella. Massively overhyped and fundamentally flawed.

It takes just a few keystrokes to type "fundamentally flawed", but people seems to not agree whether that's really the case. So why do you think it is flawed?

I don't know shit about economics, so I can't say anything useful about that aspect of Bitcoin. I do know a little about distributed systems and p2p however. Disclaimer: Bitcoin is a bit of black magic so I'm not going to claim I know every detail about it. I did read the original paper, so I'll focus on what I got from reading it.

First of all, Bitcoin replicates work over all nodes. This means you need a global broadcast mechanism to inform all nodes of transactions and new blocks. For transaction broadcast, you'll need O(m*n) messages with m the number of transactions and n the number of nodes. This is scalability problem number one.

Then you have the blocks. Each represents a transaction history of a given period of time (magic number is 10 minutes iirc). When the number of transactions/second (tps) goes up, so does the size of the blocks. The calculations found here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability give >1GB per block for 2000tps, which is what VISA is doing right now. If you're connected to k peers, that means you're going to need kGB of bandwidth per 10 minutes. Network-wide, regardless of your topology, you'll still need at least nGB of global traffic every ten minutes. When you have a thousand nodes, you have 1TB of data flying around the internet every 10 minutes, and that's on top of the global transaction broadcast traffic.

Now remember that if Bitcoin wants to replace the US dollar they'll have to scale way beyond 2000tps (for example, when China and India join the party), but let's say 2000tps is the goal. The only way that's going to function is to have a two-tier system with big clusters on top and people like you and I below that, just to move that much data around. Introducing supernodes in a p2p system is a cheap way of buying some scalability, but it doesn't solve the fundamental problem, all it does is buy you some time before the entire thing keels over.

Then there's the computational effort. The idea of calculating useless hashes is meant to keep botnets from taking over the majority vote. One CPU cycle is one vote, rather than one IP is one vote. To take Moore's law into account, the system automatically adjusts the difficulty to keep everything chugging along in an orderly fashion. This is a nice idea, but a botnet can still ddos a node, at which point it doesn't matter how much video cards that node has. As long as those nodes are on the internet they are still vulnerable. This is happening right now btw, most miners are mining in so-called pools, and taking out an entire pool by ddossing it means you can increase your own chances of mining coins. This is why the pools are having trouble staying up.

Another attack vector is ddossing the entire network by sending a single bitcoin back and forth between two addresses. Transaction fees can help a bit here, but if someone is willing to spend some money to dramatically raise the TPS count for just a short time you're already in a lot of trouble.

Re: The Quora post that killed Bitcoins. Please discuss if his arguments are valid.

#29

Some of the primary arguments he uses against Bitcoin are actually its strengths. Fundamentally, Bitcoins will be in higher demand than dollars because their value will continue to rise instead of fall. This means that goods and services as priced in bitcoins will be discounted compared to dollars, driving their adoption. You can see this same dynamic at work in black markets around the world where the USD is the de…

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that at some point Bitcoin will stop its deflation. Once Bitcoin has mainstream success, if that ever happens, the value of a Bitcoin will stop growing and people will start spending Bitcoin. At some point, the value of a Bitcoin lost through hoarding will equal the value gained by new adapters.

In the eventual steady state (assuming Bitcoin becomes popular and the number of coins created through mining becomes small compared to the number of existing coins), Bitcoin should constantly experience deflation as the world population continues to grow and per-capita productivity continues to increase.

Re: The Quora post that killed Bitcoins. Please discuss if his arguments are valid.

#30
post #20

Talk about an overly dramatic headline, the "post that killed Bitcoins"? but the submitter isn't even sure if the arguments are valid? (And has hacker news turned into bitcoin news? it seems like there are several bitcoin links a day)

HN goes in cycles. (This is a trivial observation, since pretty much everything goes in cycles).

* Subject X is broached in an exciting blog post.

* The submission receives massive upvotes and hundreds of comments.

* Subject X simmers. Soon various HN link-targets (AVC, that Steve fellow, TechCrunch, the other guy here called Jacques) begin weighing in, netting their initial submitters still hundreds more karma.

* Before long, karma farming means that the front page is overrun with links to posts covering Subject X from every conceivable angle. "Why Subject X is the Future". "Why Subject X is a fad". "Launch a Subject X statup right now!". "Subject X is retarded, here's why".

* Then, one day, somebody posts about Subject Y.

Post reply on HN