4 ms·

They're referring to any unique characteristics that give Bitcoin value in competing with other cryptocurrencies, which is mostly true. There are already a num

by bduerst 10y ago

They're referring to any unique characteristics that give Bitcoin value in competing with other cryptocurrencies, which is mostly true. There are already a number of newer cryptocurrencies that are better than bitcoin (e.g. no block size issue, computational waste, etc.) but with bitcoin it will take more than that to dethrone Bitcoin's brand as "Internet Drug Money".

petertodd 10y ago
All existing cryptocurrencies have a block size issue because blockchains have terrible scalability; removing a safety limit doesn't make the underlying problem go away.
- bduerst 10y ago
  I'm referring to the famed blocksize debate [1] that's happened with Bitcoin, in which several miners have gained control of the blockchain through economies of scale and are preventing forks for block size increase [2]. This size increase would allow for more than 7 tx/s but it would also increase costs for miners, so the miners are ignoring it, effectively making it tragedy of the commons. Note: This isn't a blockchain issue, it's a Bitcoin issue. Other blockchains have implemented different measures to deal with transaction saturation and block size caps. [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy [1] https://blog.plan99.net/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7#.xtjp0wbx1 https://blog.plan99.net/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experi...
  - stale2002 10y ago
    Look, I am a pro big blocker myself (I think that the network would be perfectly fine with a 4-8x capacity increase). But Peter Todd has a point. (I would hope so. He is literally one of the experts) Imagine if blocks were x Gigabytes. Thats X GigaBytes that have to be sent to every single miner in the world every 10 minutes! There is a fundamental N squared problem in blockchains that you can't get around without using some very clever tricks that haven't been implemented yet.
    - bduerst 10y ago
      Litecoin has the same blocksize as Bitcoin, but resolves blocks every 2.5 minutes instead of 10, giving it more 4x capacity. ZCash just forces block size increases as hard forks. Like I said, different blockchains solves the blocksize differently, and Bitcoin has demonstrated that it's not capable of addressing it's blocksize issue and can't scale. You can scoff and say, "That's a non-issue.", but even at the start of an NPR Planet Money podcast episode about Bitcoins, where they do a Bitcoin transfer, it hits the cap and gets lost.
      - stale2002 10y ago
        Litecoin's capacity is still nothing compared to VISA or Mastercard. The question is not whether a crytocurrency can do 4X. The question is whether it can do 1,000X or more.
        tlrobinson 10y ago
        You don't need to settle every transaction on the blockchain itself. See https://lightning.network/ https://lightning.network/
        bduerst 10y ago
        Sidechains are not a workaround, even ignoring that they're centralized and marketed as such. Sidechains only solve the problem of user scalability, not volume scalability, because they still require the Bitcoin network to verify. For example, on a side chain it would take seconds to make 10,000,000 transactions between 2 people, but making 2 transactions between 10,000,000 people would take over a month.
        tlrobinson 10y ago
        Sidechains and Lightning Network are not the same thing. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Lightning_Network https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Lightning_Network https://lightning.network/ https://lightning.network/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/greg-maxwell-lightning-network-better-than-sidechains-for-scaling-bitcoin-1461077424 https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/greg-maxwell-lightning-... It's basically a network of "payment channels" you can route instantaneous off-chain payments over, which occasionally settle on the blockchain. And you don't need to trust anyone in the network with your funds.
gre 10y ago
Which cryptocurrencies in particular are worth watching and why?
- pmorici 10y ago
  This site is good for getting an idea about what coins are actually being used. Bitcoin is extremely dominate. https://coinmarketcap.com/ https://coinmarketcap.com/
- bduerst 10y ago
  I don't keep tabs on them all, but in terms of technical aspects I think Monero stands the most likely to be a good substitute for the Bitcoin users. ZCash seems popular, but it's privately-run with a U.S. based company and can pull some strings to assist in de-anonymizing users. They basically claim no liability for it's users which means it may be too comfortable with authorities for Bitcoin users. Other than that I think Ethereum has the best chance in terms of market traction to take off as a true international currency.
  - abecedarius 10y ago
    How can the Zcash company deanonymize users? I haven't studied their system, but that sounds completely against the design goals. (Not to mention to mention the personality of those Zcash core developers I've worked with in the past at leastauthority.com. But security engineering is about not having to rely on their probity.) I don't understand what you're saying about liability and authorities either. In online discussions of cryptocurrencies it's clear that many people's financial positions bias their conversational positions. I'm long on all four of these currencies.
    - bduerst 10y ago
      From the whitepaper: >A powerful attacker could potentially fabricate an additional block solely for a targeted user. Spending any coins with respect to the updated Merkle tree in this “poison-pill” block will uniquely identify the targeted user. If ZCash works with that person or organization, then they're able to deanonymize the inputs on the transaction. As a privately owned U.S. company they can be compelled to do this with authorities. For most people this doesn't matter, but for the type of user that bitcoin attracts, I think they would care, which is why I think Monero is probably better for them.
baddox 10y ago
There are undoubtedly improvements that can be made to Bitcoin or adopted by its competitors. But you still have to have people using a currency. Anyway, my point is that this doesn't compromise the scarcity of Bitcoin. Scarcity of a currency does not refer to a lack of competing currencies.
runeks 10y ago
> They're referring to any unique characteristics that give Bitcoin value in competing with other cryptocurrencies, which is mostly true. The unique characteristic that makes Bitcoin more valuable than all other cryptocurrencies is liquidity. The order book depth for the USD/EUR Bitcoin market is more than an order of magnitude greater than all other cryptocurrencies combined. The more liquid a monetary unit is, the less friction is involved in using it for exchange, since you pay the spread (which increases with order size) every time you enter and leave the Bitcoin market. This is the only reason gold is still so valuable: it has immense liquidity/market depth, meaning you can quickly offload it on the market when needed. This is very useful, and the defining property of money.

by bduerst 10y ago

petertodd 10y ago

All existing cryptocurrencies have a block size issue because blockchains have terrible scalability; removing a safety limit doesn't make the underlying problem go away.

bduerst 10y ago
I'm referring to the famed blocksize debate [1] that's happened with Bitcoin, in which several miners have gained control of the blockchain through economies of scale and are preventing forks for block size increase [2]. This size increase would allow for more than 7 tx/s but it would also increase costs for miners, so the miners are ignoring it, effectively making it tragedy of the commons. Note: This isn't a blockchain issue, it's a Bitcoin issue. Other blockchains have implemented different measures to deal with transaction saturation and block size caps. [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy [1] https://blog.plan99.net/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7#.xtjp0wbx1 https://blog.plan99.net/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experi...
- stale2002 10y ago
  Look, I am a pro big blocker myself (I think that the network would be perfectly fine with a 4-8x capacity increase). But Peter Todd has a point. (I would hope so. He is literally one of the experts) Imagine if blocks were x Gigabytes. Thats X GigaBytes that have to be sent to every single miner in the world every 10 minutes! There is a fundamental N squared problem in blockchains that you can't get around without using some very clever tricks that haven't been implemented yet.
  - bduerst 10y ago
    Litecoin has the same blocksize as Bitcoin, but resolves blocks every 2.5 minutes instead of 10, giving it more 4x capacity. ZCash just forces block size increases as hard forks. Like I said, different blockchains solves the blocksize differently, and Bitcoin has demonstrated that it's not capable of addressing it's blocksize issue and can't scale. You can scoff and say, "That's a non-issue.", but even at the start of an NPR Planet Money podcast episode about Bitcoins, where they do a Bitcoin transfer, it hits the cap and gets lost.
    - stale2002 10y ago
      Litecoin's capacity is still nothing compared to VISA or Mastercard. The question is not whether a crytocurrency can do 4X. The question is whether it can do 1,000X or more.
      - tlrobinson 10y ago
        You don't need to settle every transaction on the blockchain itself. See https://lightning.network/ https://lightning.network/
        bduerst 10y ago
        Sidechains are not a workaround, even ignoring that they're centralized and marketed as such. Sidechains only solve the problem of user scalability, not volume scalability, because they still require the Bitcoin network to verify. For example, on a side chain it would take seconds to make 10,000,000 transactions between 2 people, but making 2 transactions between 10,000,000 people would take over a month.
        tlrobinson 10y ago
        Sidechains and Lightning Network are not the same thing. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Lightning_Network https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Lightning_Network https://lightning.network/ https://lightning.network/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/greg-maxwell-lightning-network-better-than-sidechains-for-scaling-bitcoin-1461077424 https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/greg-maxwell-lightning-... It's basically a network of "payment channels" you can route instantaneous off-chain payments over, which occasionally settle on the blockchain. And you don't need to trust anyone in the network with your funds.

gre 10y ago

Which cryptocurrencies in particular are worth watching and why?

pmorici 10y ago
This site is good for getting an idea about what coins are actually being used. Bitcoin is extremely dominate. https://coinmarketcap.com/ https://coinmarketcap.com/
bduerst 10y ago
I don't keep tabs on them all, but in terms of technical aspects I think Monero stands the most likely to be a good substitute for the Bitcoin users. ZCash seems popular, but it's privately-run with a U.S. based company and can pull some strings to assist in de-anonymizing users. They basically claim no liability for it's users which means it may be too comfortable with authorities for Bitcoin users. Other than that I think Ethereum has the best chance in terms of market traction to take off as a true international currency.
- abecedarius 10y ago
  How can the Zcash company deanonymize users? I haven't studied their system, but that sounds completely against the design goals. (Not to mention to mention the personality of those Zcash core developers I've worked with in the past at leastauthority.com. But security engineering is about not having to rely on their probity.) I don't understand what you're saying about liability and authorities either. In online discussions of cryptocurrencies it's clear that many people's financial positions bias their conversational positions. I'm long on all four of these currencies.
  - bduerst 10y ago
    From the whitepaper: >A powerful attacker could potentially fabricate an additional block solely for a targeted user. Spending any coins with respect to the updated Merkle tree in this “poison-pill” block will uniquely identify the targeted user. If ZCash works with that person or organization, then they're able to deanonymize the inputs on the transaction. As a privately owned U.S. company they can be compelled to do this with authorities. For most people this doesn't matter, but for the type of user that bitcoin attracts, I think they would care, which is why I think Monero is probably better for them.

baddox 10y ago

There are undoubtedly improvements that can be made to Bitcoin or adopted by its competitors. But you still have to have people using a currency. Anyway, my point is that this doesn't compromise the scarcity of Bitcoin. Scarcity of a currency does not refer to a lack of competing currencies.

runeks 10y ago

> They're referring to any unique characteristics that give Bitcoin value in competing with other cryptocurrencies, which is mostly true. The unique characteristic that makes Bitcoin more valuable than all other cryptocurrencies is liquidity. The order book depth for the USD/EUR Bitcoin market is more than an order of magnitude greater than all other cryptocurrencies combined. The more liquid a monetary unit is, the less friction is involved in using it for exchange, since you pay the spread (which increases with order size) every time you enter and leave the Bitcoin market. This is the only reason gold is still so valuable: it has immense liquidity/market depth, meaning you can quickly offload it on the market when needed. This is very useful, and the defining property of money.