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

Why Bitcoin is a significant breakthrough, but perhaps not as a currency

dpk.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 105 posts

Re: Why Bitcoin is a significant breakthrough, but perhaps not as a currency

#11

Post by BlackDeath3 »

fragsworth wrote: post #6
BlackDeath3 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between the 1980s and now is that people now can use the Internet to learn about Bitcoin for themselves, from the source, instead of basing all they know on hype. It's a shame that so many people seem to love to talk more than they learn.

Yeah, that difference definitely exists now, and accelerates the learning process quite a bit. I think most people don't generally go to the source when learning about something, though, even today when it's easily possible. Usually what people do is learn what is fed to them from whatever outlets they prefer (TV, news websites, reddit, etc.) and hear about stuff in passing.

Well, while we're on the subject, for anybody who is interested in going to the Bitcoin source: www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Re: Why Bitcoin is a significant breakthrough, but perhaps not as a currency

#12

Post by SwellJoe »

T-A wrote: post #3

Naive question from total outsider to both contexts, popped up while reading this: has there been any speculation that Aaron Swartz = Satoshi Nakamoto, or are there good reasons to exclude it?

It's not a theory I have ever heard, and I think there's sufficient reason to rule it out. Swartz never really professed an interest in currency or monetary policy, etc. that I am aware of. He was an extremely prolific individual who worked on many very public projects. Transparency was clearly one of his core values, and never exhibited more than passing general nerd interest in cryptography, anonymity, or the technolibertarian ideal that seems to have been a driving force for Satoshi. Also, he was already pretty damned busy in 2008-2009. I doubt he would have had time to do the huge amount of design work that went into Bitcoin without somebody noticing what he was working on.

So, Aaron was a brilliant dude, who did a lot of cool stuff. I just don't think the personality matches up, at all, with whoever created Bitcoin. If Swartz created a cryptocurrency, which I don't think he would have, I doubt it would look like Bitcoin. (There's also several people much higher on the list of "might be Satoshi".)

Re: Why Bitcoin is a significant breakthrough, but perhaps not as a currency

#13

Post by fragsworth »

praxeologist wrote: post #10
wildbunny wrote: post #4

This article misses the true breakthrough which bitcoin represents which is a trustless , decentralised store and exchange of value.

On that note, I want to point people to Protoshares and the concept of DACs (Decentralized Autonomous Corporations): http://protoshares.com/ http://letstalkbitcoin.com/bitcoin-and-the-three-laws-of-rob... http://letstalkbitcoin.com/dacs-that-spawn-dacs/ The use of the word "corporation" is kind of wonky to me and the whole concept took me a little time to wrap my head around it, but these are the types of things we c…

> hopefully IMO eventually the abolition of states worldwide.

These kinds of comments do nothing to help promote bitcoin as a legitimate technology and only increase the risk that cryptocurrencies become generally illegal to use. I'm really disappointed with the anti-government garbage spouted by so many people in the community.

Re: Why Bitcoin is a significant breakthrough, but perhaps not as a currency

#14

Post by smokeyj »

fragsworth wrote: post #13
praxeologist wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On that note, I want to point people to Protoshares and the concept of DACs (Decentralized Autonomous Corporations): http://protoshares.com/ http://letstalkbitcoin.com/bitcoin-and-the-three-laws-of-rob... http://letstalkbitcoin.com/dacs-that-spawn-dacs/ The use of the word "corporation" is kind of wonky to me and the whole concept took me a little time to wrap my head around it, but these are the types of things we c…

> hopefully IMO eventually the abolition of states worldwide. These kinds of comments do nothing to help promote bitcoin as a legitimate technology and only increase the risk that cryptocurrencies become generally illegal to use. I'm really disappointed with the anti-government garbage spouted by so many people in the community.

Can you voice your disagreement without getting angry? Everyone has an opinion. Being passionate about yours doesn't make theirs wrong.

Re: Why Bitcoin is a significant breakthrough, but perhaps not as a currency

#15

Post by andrewla »

I don't think the author realizes how uninteresting a decentralized transaction store is without the currency element.

The trick was to line up economic incentives so that securing the network and accepting transaction fees are the same thing.

The fact that bitcoin serves as a centralized document store is one of the biggest defects in bitcoin as it stands now, and when bitcoin does fall, it will fall to a system that treats the transfer of currency units as a first-class citizen rather than a side effect of a script.

Re: Why Bitcoin is a significant breakthrough, but perhaps not as a currency

#17

Post by fragsworth »

andrewla wrote: post #15

I don't think the author realizes how uninteresting a decentralized transaction store is without the currency element. The trick was to line up economic incentives so that securing the network and accepting transaction fees are the same thing. The fact that bitcoin serves as a centralized document store is one of the biggest defects in bitcoin as it stands now, and when bitcoin does fall, it will fall to a system tha…

The currency aspect has to remain, because mining would not exist without it. The devs know this, so they'll do their best to preserve this aspect. However, having the protocol support documents as well is pretty amazing:

Suppose it's 15 years from now. Many cars can drive themselves.

Suppose someone designs a mechanism that allows you to control your vehicle (remotely) only if you own a specific "ownership item" (colored coin, whatever people are calling it) on the bitcoin network. You prove this to the vehicle, and it goes to wherever you tell it to. The item on the bitcoin network means you "own" the vehicle.

Now you can tell your vehicle to go to a public place where someone might inspect it with the intent of purchasing it. That person tells you "OK, I'll buy it for 0.1BTC" and you perform an exchange of your ownership document for 0.1BTC over the bitcoin network.

You don't have to trust anyone with anything. The exchange happens atomically. You don't even have to go anywhere to perform the exchange.

Re: Why Bitcoin is a significant breakthrough, but perhaps not as a currency

#18

Post by lifeformed »

Sorry to be a bit off-topic, but is anyone else's browser having difficulty rendering the text on this page? http://i.snag.gy/SK7NX.jpg

I've noticed this on a few sites, and I'm wondering if the problem is on my end, or if it's a problem with the website.

Re: Why Bitcoin is a significant breakthrough, but perhaps not as a currency

#19

Post by rthomas6 »

I am convinced that many problems with Bitcoin would be solved if we could come up with a way to tie mining difficulty to the currency's demand instead of only to the mining computing power. Instead of ensuring a predictable generation rate, this could ensure a predictable value. When demand wanes, the currency is harder to mine and becomes more scarce, and when demand surges, the currency becomes easier to mine and more available. This would stop some of the volatility in BTC prices. You could plan the rough change in value over time, and build it into the algorithm, perhaps making gains unlimited at first, then making it very deflationary for several years, and gradually easing gains to something like 0-2% deflation per year. A currency with a known long term future value is obviously very useful, and a stable value is also more useful.

I can't think of a decentralized way to measure demand, though, so maybe this is not possible.

Re: Why Bitcoin is a significant breakthrough, but perhaps not as a currency

#20

Post by jv22222 »

rthomas6 wrote: post #19

I am convinced that many problems with Bitcoin would be solved if we could come up with a way to tie mining difficulty to the currency's demand instead of only to the mining computing power. Instead of ensuring a predictable generation rate, this could ensure a predictable value . When demand wanes, the currency is harder to mine and becomes more scarce, and when demand surges, the currency becomes easier to mine and…

I was thinking exactly the same thing.
Post reply on HN