4 ms·

The comparisons between Bitcoin and IP as in the internet are always infuriating because of their insulting simplicity and ignorance. Bitcoin and block-chain t

The comparisons between Bitcoin and IP as in the internet are always infuriating because of their insulting simplicity and ignorance. Bitcoin and block-chain technology may well prove to be analogous to Gopher, an experiment that seemed like a good idea at the time but was ultimately crushed by a superior idea, the then World Wide Web with HTTP. It's too early to say. The other thing to keep in mind is IP is a language, it's not a currency. IP addresses might be a sort of currency today, but during the explosive growth of the internet these were pretty much free, all you had to do was ask and you were given thousands of them. Imagine what the internet would be like if you had to "mine" IP addresses. If a handful of early adopters controlled 80% of the IP space, if they were the ones now charging rent to those seeking to utilize that space, would there be such rapid uptake? Would you be happy leasing your IPs from some third party who was simply fortunate enough to be there first and stake a claim? The thing that's made the internet so prevalent, so pervasive, is how little friction there is on using it. In many cases using IP was significantly less fuss than going with competing protocols. Bitcoin is not always easier than the alternative, it's not always better, it's just different and that's not necessarily a good thing.

wyldfire 10y ago
> If a handful of early adopters controlled 80% of the IP space, if they were the ones now charging rent to those seeking to utilize that space, would there be such rapid uptake? The analogies are certainly breaking down here. Bitcoin's volatility is a major impediment to masses using it to store value, probably one of the main impediments. Early adopters driving scarcity impacts the exchange rate but not adoption. Satoshis don't map well at all to IP addresses, regardless of how much or little they're valued.
rossng 10y ago
> If a handful of early adopters controlled 80% of the IP space, if they were the ones now charging rent to those seeking to utilize that space, would there be such rapid uptake? Would you be happy leasing your IPs from some third party who was simply fortunate enough to be there first and stake a claim? This is effectively exactly what happened with IP. There are a bunch of (many now-defunct) companies allocated huge portions of the IPv4 space, and they get to sell those addresses to people that need them. It's not ideal, but you can hardly claim that it has hurt adoption. I think the ownership distribution issue is the least of Bitcoin's problems. There will always be people who are rich for no justifiable reason.
- astrodust 10y ago
  The impact so far has been minimal despite the constraint of supply, the cost of IPs is still marginal. It's also a situation that has unfolded recently, long after the rampant success of the platform. It's also possible to make more efficient use of limited addresses now either through NAT, or IPv4 to IPv6 bridges, where once again IPv6 permits large numbers of addresses to be issued with zero cost. > There will always be people who are rich for no justifiable reason. There are a lot of people that profited in a huge way on early internet plays "for no justifiable reason", but that didn't hinder growth because it didn't constrain supply. Someone hoarding Bitcoin does.
  - Jtsummers 10y ago
    And someone hoarding Bitcoin can seriously disrupt the Bitcoin economy by releasing it in massive amounts at a later point. Even an uncoordinated (deliberately) collection of hoarders can screw it all up, see market crashes. Bitcoin, having little in the way of a stable economy to be valued on, is too closely tied in value to its current exchange rates. This leads to it being more of a commodity (like stocks) than a currency. So if someone sees the price drop, they sell (at the now reduced price), which triggers others to sell, and others still. This is not the mark of a stable currency or even a potentially stable one. Until a significant population can conduct the vast majority of their business in BTC, it's not a viable currency.
    - astrodust 10y ago
      Yeah, it's things like that which make the dynamics entirely different. If someone flooded the market with IP addressees there wouldn't be people losing their minds about the collapsing value of their holdings, they'd be celebrating.
      - theseatoms 10y ago
        Interesting. Naive "econ 101-ism" would suggest that Bitcoin's marketplace is "better," with its finer-grained and more evenly publicized price discovery, (i.e. efficient markets.) But it seems this situation is worse for Bitcoin itself, since mass-involvement in price discovery can induce bubbles and panics, and therefore less confidence in the underlying product/service.
woah 10y ago
Whoever said that there can only ever be one blockchain? Blockchain technology is like early networking tech as a field, the Bitcoin blockchain is like one server.
- astrodust 10y ago
  If it's anything like IRC, which started with one network, we'll see crazy amounts of fragmentation as it spirals into utter irrelevance.

wyldfire 10y ago

> If a handful of early adopters controlled 80% of the IP space, if they were the ones now charging rent to those seeking to utilize that space, would there be such rapid uptake? The analogies are certainly breaking down here. Bitcoin's volatility is a major impediment to masses using it to store value, probably one of the main impediments. Early adopters driving scarcity impacts the exchange rate but not adoption. Satoshis don't map well at all to IP addresses, regardless of how much or little they're valued.

rossng 10y ago

> If a handful of early adopters controlled 80% of the IP space, if they were the ones now charging rent to those seeking to utilize that space, would there be such rapid uptake? Would you be happy leasing your IPs from some third party who was simply fortunate enough to be there first and stake a claim? This is effectively exactly what happened with IP. There are a bunch of (many now-defunct) companies allocated huge portions of the IPv4 space, and they get to sell those addresses to people that need them. It's not ideal, but you can hardly claim that it has hurt adoption. I think the ownership distribution issue is the least of Bitcoin's problems. There will always be people who are rich for no justifiable reason.

astrodust 10y ago
The impact so far has been minimal despite the constraint of supply, the cost of IPs is still marginal. It's also a situation that has unfolded recently, long after the rampant success of the platform. It's also possible to make more efficient use of limited addresses now either through NAT, or IPv4 to IPv6 bridges, where once again IPv6 permits large numbers of addresses to be issued with zero cost. > There will always be people who are rich for no justifiable reason. There are a lot of people that profited in a huge way on early internet plays "for no justifiable reason", but that didn't hinder growth because it didn't constrain supply. Someone hoarding Bitcoin does.
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  And someone hoarding Bitcoin can seriously disrupt the Bitcoin economy by releasing it in massive amounts at a later point. Even an uncoordinated (deliberately) collection of hoarders can screw it all up, see market crashes. Bitcoin, having little in the way of a stable economy to be valued on, is too closely tied in value to its current exchange rates. This leads to it being more of a commodity (like stocks) than a currency. So if someone sees the price drop, they sell (at the now reduced price), which triggers others to sell, and others still. This is not the mark of a stable currency or even a potentially stable one. Until a significant population can conduct the vast majority of their business in BTC, it's not a viable currency.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    Yeah, it's things like that which make the dynamics entirely different. If someone flooded the market with IP addressees there wouldn't be people losing their minds about the collapsing value of their holdings, they'd be celebrating.
    - theseatoms 10y ago
      Interesting. Naive "econ 101-ism" would suggest that Bitcoin's marketplace is "better," with its finer-grained and more evenly publicized price discovery, (i.e. efficient markets.) But it seems this situation is worse for Bitcoin itself, since mass-involvement in price discovery can induce bubbles and panics, and therefore less confidence in the underlying product/service.

woah 10y ago

Whoever said that there can only ever be one blockchain? Blockchain technology is like early networking tech as a field, the Bitcoin blockchain is like one server.

astrodust 10y ago
If it's anything like IRC, which started with one network, we'll see crazy amounts of fragmentation as it spirals into utter irrelevance.