Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Bitcoin Matters

mobile.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 268 posts

Re: Why Bitcoin Matters

#121

Post by asciimo »

I'm a Bitcoin believer but I feel a little embarrassed after reading this. I'm impressed that Marc Andreessen can get an entire Dealbook page to advertise a pet technology without any fact checking. (Is that the point of Dealbook? I almost never read it.)

> Even Netflix, a completely virtual service, is only available in about 40 countries.

The implication is that mere payment logistics are inhibiting Netflix's internationalization. What about copyright and regional distribution restrictions?

> Ben S. Bernanke, formerly Federal Reserve chairman, recently wrote that digital currencies like Bitcoin “may hold long-term promise, particularly if they promote a faster, more secure and more efficient payment system.”

Bernanke never said this (http://imaginarymarkets.com/reddit-corrects-bitcoin-quotes-a...), and it's tacky to perpetuate this falsehood.

> But I hope that I have given you a sense of the enormous promise of Bitcoin.

Indeed, he succeeded here, though a little too breathlessly.

Re: Why Bitcoin Matters

#122

Post by ye »

plock wrote: post #79
ye wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does dollar have an intrinsic value? Actually, can you even define "intrinsic value" without going in circles or defining it simply as current value?

If we take 'intrinsic value' to mean 'having some use other than to simply trade away again to someone else, or being backed by something with intrinsic value', then the dollar has intrinsic value in that it is backed by freedom from being prosecuted by the US government for non-payment of taxes.

> the dollar has intrinsic value in that it is backed by freedom from being prosecuted by the US government for non-payment of taxes

Do you realize how little sense you're making?

It's like you wanted to insert meaningless buzzwords like "freedom", not to mention that there's no freedom from being prosecuted for non-payment of taxes.

Well, in that case Bitcoin's intrinsic value is that it's backed by the freedom of storage, transfer, global acceptance and low fees, immunity to being counterfeited, immunity from inflation caused by printing, etc.

Re: Why Bitcoin Matters

#123

Post by drcode »

kolev wrote: post #104
drcode wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's misleading: A lot of those transactions are microtransactions (not possible at all with credit cards) so of course the % will look elevated.

Dwolla has free micropayments (up to $10). Amazon offers special pricing for micropayments (5% + $.05) and so does PayPal (although it requires a separate account). If BTC price goes too high, the dollar costs of Bitcoin transaction fees will get pretty high as well. Anyway, here's an interesting article to read: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-02/bitcoin-is-an-expen...

Like others, you seem to be assuming that bitcoin is static and not being improved and that transaction fees won't be lower with continued technological improvements.

Re: Why Bitcoin Matters

#124

Post by maaku »

sigil wrote: post #115
maaku wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but AFAIK there is no rigorous proof yet that the selfish mining equilibrium isn't a real threat. It's very easy to detect and respond to. Point your miners at the large pools, and check if they are building off of non-public blocks. Respond accordingly.

How do you know they're building off of non-public blocks if they're doing so in secret collusion? For what it's worth, Felten et al have a somewhat convincing (if not yet rigorous) argument that members of a so-called selfish mining pool have more incentive to defect than to continue cheating [0]. But, if a single entity controlled all of the 33%, defection is not a risk, and this entity could still claim an outsize…

By running your own node. You can know what is public and what is not.

Re: Why Bitcoin Matters

#125

Post by drcode »

kolev wrote: post #111
drcode wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please let me know when web programming finally gets solved more elegantly, without the anachronistic ugliness of js/css/html.

Many have tried, but people keep using what they are used to. Same with Bitcoin. People will keep using their convenient credit cards regardless if they are a superior or a subpar technology. Until Bitcoin diehards get this simple fact and quit spreading delusions that Bitcoin is replacing cash, credit cards, and Western Union, people will not take them seriously.

Centralized technologies: Compuserve, MasterCard.

Decentralized technologies: The Internet, Bitcoin.

Re: Why Bitcoin Matters

#126

Post by eurleif »

riemannzeta wrote: post #109
eurleif wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If the BGP is about solving the problem of fraud, then Bitcoin hasn't solved it. Do you have any idea what the BGP is?

I'm not an expert, but I read the paper. So you don't need an intermediary to confirm that a particular digital transaction took place between two people. By analogy to the original problem as stated, that's like saying you don't need an intermediary to confirm that a message with particular content was delivered between two generals. You still need an intermediary to confirm that the recipient is going to act on it…

>By analogy to the original problem as stated, that's like saying you don't need an intermediary to confirm that a message with particular content was delivered between two generals.

No, that's not analogous. Bitcoin prevents double-spending. It doesn't just deliver messages.

You're talking about a whole other level of cooperation. It's true that Bitcoin doesn't guarantee that, but no one said it did, and that doesn't imply it doesn't really solve BGP.

Bitcoin does have a built-in feature, multisig transactions, that makes a more-trustworthy form of escrow possible.

Re: Why Bitcoin Matters

#127

Post by ye »

venomsnake wrote: post #65
Lambdanaut wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define "value", because I'm pretty sure that 99% of globally used currencies won't have this magical "intrinsic value" that you speak of.

The usd has intrinsic value - it saves you from years in jail if you cough up as much as Uncle Sam requires of you every year.

How is that a value? Even if it is a value in some bizarre universe, it's not intrinsic, but an external one.

Re: Why Bitcoin Matters

#129

Post by dllthomas »

interstitial wrote: post #116
ye wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does dollar have an intrinsic value? Actually, can you even define "intrinsic value" without going in circles or defining it simply as current value?

The dollar's value comes from the barrel of gun. I thought that was plain enough. Bitcoins not so much.

While I wouldn't put it past the USG to use arms to prop up the dollar, I'm not sure if there are specific actions you're referring to.

Re: Why Bitcoin Matters

#130

Post by hendzen »

sigil wrote: post #113
hendzen wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Paxos is not a solution to BGP. Paxos explicitly does not consider malicious processes. EDIT: fixed typo

Paxos is Byzantine Fault Tolerant. A malicious node is a special case of failed node. "The objective of Byzantine fault tolerance is to be able to defend against Byzantine failures, in which components of a system fail in arbitrary ways (i.e., not just by stopping or crashing but by processing requests incorrectly, corrupting their local state, and/or producing incorrect or inconsistent outputs)." http://en.wikipedia…

That is a correct definition of BFT, but as I said, Paxos does not tolerate Byzantine faults. Here's a direct quote [0] from Leslie Lamport, the author of the Paxos algorithm.

    Assume that agents can communicate with one another by sending messages. 
    We use the customary asynchronous, non-Byzantine model, in which:
    
    • Agents operate at arbitrary speed, may fail by stopping, and may restart. 
    Since all agents may fail after a value is chosen and then restart, 
    a solution is impossible unless some information can be remembered by an agent
     that has failed and restarted.
    
    • Messages can take arbitrarily long to be delivered, can be duplicated, 
    and can be lost, but they are not corrupted.
So, to be clear, Paxos tolerates processes that crash arbitrarily, but not processes that send malicious or incorrect messages.

For a consensus algorithm that does tolerate Byzantine faults, see Liskov's Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance [1].

[0] - http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/lamport/pubs/p...

[1] - http://www.pmg.lcs.mit.edu/papers/osdi99.pdf

Post reply on HN