5 ms·

I agree with the premise that fungibility is important to Bitcoin's success, but I disagree that Bitcoin is 'flawed' or has in some way lost to Monero. There w

I agree with the premise that fungibility is important to Bitcoin's success, but I disagree that Bitcoin is 'flawed' or has in some way lost to Monero. There was an update yesterday on the progress being made on privacy features in Bitcoin: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-December/015346.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017... On a related note, I am happy about the conservative and careful pace of development of Bitcoin. I don't want my store of value to undergo risky development.

madamelic 9y ago
Bitcoin may not be dead but it is certainly being destroyed on its original purpose (being money). The only reason to hold Bitcoin is the naive hope that more suckers (not even a better word for them) pay you to hold something they think will go higher (again: suckers) There are networks that are faster / more secure than Bitcoin and therefore more valuable as usable money (which is what Bitcoin was supposed to be) Bitcoin may be worth something, but it certainly isn't worth $11k in my opinion since it is just a community-decided value-store currently. The same could be said for USD but at least USD is backed by the United States.
- qubex 9y ago
  https://medium.com/@jamesjunghanns/my-0-00000173120-btc-a-practicing-orthodox-macroeconomists-unsolicited-views-on-bitcoin-543da352fc49 https://medium.com/@jamesjunghanns/my-0-00000173120-btc-a-pr...
- deweller 9y ago
  NOT being backed by any one country or central bank is Bitcoin's primary value proposition.
  - optimuspaul 9y ago
    sure not being back by one is a value prop, but not being backed by any is a miss in my opinion. I think the decentralized is great, but it's so decentralized it's basically thin ice.
  - madamelic 9y ago
    >NOT being backed by any one country or central bank is Bitcoin's primary value proposition. Absolutely. But if no one is backing it and it has no purpose that supports its value, it shouldn't be worth a lot. Monero is underpriced because it is actually useful and can support that price. Bitcoin is worth something, just not 11k in my opinion.
    - xiphias 9y ago
      The futures market is coming in a few weeks, so if you ar so sure, you can short Bitcoin, but I wouldn't bet against the best store of value ever created.
- XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y ago
  Bitcoin is still the network that is least likely to see a double spend executed.
  - mrep 9y ago
    That depends on how much you trust a few chinese companies/government.
    - XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y ago
      I tx no where near the opportunity cost of a double spend on bitcoin. I take your point, but it honestly seems a little much to assume that multiple players will act as one because they live in the same country. I haven't seen any evidence that the chinese govt controls what blocks are minted. A great counter example would be slower conf times from tx going to anti communist party groups. Does Ai weiwei have a bitcoin address?
- djtriptych 9y ago
  The size of the BTC network is a huge part of its value. It's already hard even for state actors to compromise the blockchain.
  - cryptodogemoon 9y ago
    The hash power that left BTC for BCC momentarily around early November was conveniently 60%. One can imagine the ability of China to mobilize capital infrastructure to dominate mining space, especially when they're manufacturing all the bitcoin ASIC hardware. It seemed like there were grave concerns once ASIC hardware hit BTC, locking normal people out and introducing an attack vector disproportionately favoring existing capital to take over the network.
- prawn 9y ago
  If someone is willing to speculate (let's say suspecting BTC will burst, but not for a while yet), and that person is using spare money and cashing out after a week or two even, how are they a sucker? Any person who's asked me about getting some Bitcoin has seemed perfectly aware of what could happen. I got BTC at $900 (now approaching $12k). First got Monero at $70, and it's close to $250. Maybe I'll pick the wrong time to sell, but it's a risk I'm aware of. I've lost much more money on speculative stocks (backed by actual businesses with real assets) than I have put into this. For anyone throwing in $100 just to be part of the adventure, I'd bet they've spent more than that on a single night getting drunk at the bar.
jackmodern 9y ago
store of value adds very little value to the rest of the world yet to adopt it. buying bitcoin/sending it is more expensive than a wire transfer. this isn't what bitcoin was meant to be. I no longer use bitcoin for anything other than HODLing, LTC has completely displaced it for as a means of exchange. That seems like the more important problem to solve for mass adoption. Can't have people paying for food/goods with bitcoin, it just won't work for that any more.
- djtriptych 9y ago
  Bitcoin has a flat transaction rate for moving any amount of value. So yes, more expensive if the amount being transferred is low, and I mean really low.
  - dfox 9y ago
    Bitcoin's transaction fees are more complex than flat per transaction. It depends on the size of transaction which then in turn depends on how many incoming payments you have to combine into the amount of BTC you want to send. This has somewhat surprising and unfortunate high-level effect that the smaller transactions you do, the higher are fees for your future ones. The same is true for all cryptocurrencies where you spend transaction outputs (all bitcoin derived ones) instead of moving abstract numbers between "accounts" (ethereum), where the transaction fee is essentially flat and often insignificant. I'm not sure how Monero and Zcash works in this regard. Edit: tl;dr: problem with bitcoin's transaction fees is that they are not flat, but instead depend on non-obvious technical details of the protocol.
    - TD-Linux 9y ago
      While it is true that Bitcoin transaction sizes* vary depending on the coins available in your wallet (vs Ethereum only depends on the account), most of the volatility is based on the pricing of gas or bytes, not coin selection. Also, pertaining to the original article, it's unclear if either ring signatures or bullet proofs can be made to work with an account model. Is there any examples of this? *Bitcoin now measures transactions in weight, not size, a similar concept to Ethereum's gas (though much simpler)
freerobot 9y ago
Bitcoin will eventually pull in the fungibility of Monero. Monero will stick around only as long as it remains relevant in point out that flaw in Bitcoin.
ianmiers 9y ago
Privacy for cryptocurrencies is in its infancy. So no one has lost yet. Moreover there's space for more than one private coin. It's not zero sum. And yes, Bitcoin should probably take the most cautious path. But one of the things we need to get past is people pointing to technical progress, usually involving better performance or some clever trick, and casting it as providing privacy. This isn't a race to win on privacy, its a race to get real privacy. By default everything is totally exposed in a blockchain. It's far closer to twitter for your bank account then anonymous internet cash. There are very real differences between the types of attacks the various technologies out there protect against and it's important people understand that because right now they are totally exposed. CT, which was what you pointed to in Bitcoin, hides payment values. CT doesn't directly do anything to hide the transaction graph. It can be combined with coinjoin to partially do that, but thats not whats implied here nor does faster CT really effect that. And anyone reading certainly wouldn't ask how well either of these actually protect the transaction graph. Which is a very real question. Why does this matter? It's the difference between hiding if you overpaid for a car vs hiding if you made a controversial political donation, if you got an abortion, or your identity when purchasing controversial books or movies.

madamelic 9y ago

Bitcoin may not be dead but it is certainly being destroyed on its original purpose (being money). The only reason to hold Bitcoin is the naive hope that more suckers (not even a better word for them) pay you to hold something they think will go higher (again: suckers) There are networks that are faster / more secure than Bitcoin and therefore more valuable as usable money (which is what Bitcoin was supposed to be) Bitcoin may be worth something, but it certainly isn't worth $11k in my opinion since it is just a community-decided value-store currently. The same could be said for USD but at least USD is backed by the United States.

qubex 9y ago
https://medium.com/@jamesjunghanns/my-0-00000173120-btc-a-practicing-orthodox-macroeconomists-unsolicited-views-on-bitcoin-543da352fc49 https://medium.com/@jamesjunghanns/my-0-00000173120-btc-a-pr...
deweller 9y ago
NOT being backed by any one country or central bank is Bitcoin's primary value proposition.
- optimuspaul 9y ago
  sure not being back by one is a value prop, but not being backed by any is a miss in my opinion. I think the decentralized is great, but it's so decentralized it's basically thin ice.
- madamelic 9y ago
  >NOT being backed by any one country or central bank is Bitcoin's primary value proposition. Absolutely. But if no one is backing it and it has no purpose that supports its value, it shouldn't be worth a lot. Monero is underpriced because it is actually useful and can support that price. Bitcoin is worth something, just not 11k in my opinion.
  - xiphias 9y ago
    The futures market is coming in a few weeks, so if you ar so sure, you can short Bitcoin, but I wouldn't bet against the best store of value ever created.
XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y ago
Bitcoin is still the network that is least likely to see a double spend executed.
- mrep 9y ago
  That depends on how much you trust a few chinese companies/government.
  - XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y ago
    I tx no where near the opportunity cost of a double spend on bitcoin. I take your point, but it honestly seems a little much to assume that multiple players will act as one because they live in the same country. I haven't seen any evidence that the chinese govt controls what blocks are minted. A great counter example would be slower conf times from tx going to anti communist party groups. Does Ai weiwei have a bitcoin address?
djtriptych 9y ago
The size of the BTC network is a huge part of its value. It's already hard even for state actors to compromise the blockchain.
- cryptodogemoon 9y ago
  The hash power that left BTC for BCC momentarily around early November was conveniently 60%. One can imagine the ability of China to mobilize capital infrastructure to dominate mining space, especially when they're manufacturing all the bitcoin ASIC hardware. It seemed like there were grave concerns once ASIC hardware hit BTC, locking normal people out and introducing an attack vector disproportionately favoring existing capital to take over the network.
prawn 9y ago
If someone is willing to speculate (let's say suspecting BTC will burst, but not for a while yet), and that person is using spare money and cashing out after a week or two even, how are they a sucker? Any person who's asked me about getting some Bitcoin has seemed perfectly aware of what could happen. I got BTC at $900 (now approaching $12k). First got Monero at $70, and it's close to $250. Maybe I'll pick the wrong time to sell, but it's a risk I'm aware of. I've lost much more money on speculative stocks (backed by actual businesses with real assets) than I have put into this. For anyone throwing in $100 just to be part of the adventure, I'd bet they've spent more than that on a single night getting drunk at the bar.

jackmodern 9y ago

store of value adds very little value to the rest of the world yet to adopt it. buying bitcoin/sending it is more expensive than a wire transfer. this isn't what bitcoin was meant to be. I no longer use bitcoin for anything other than HODLing, LTC has completely displaced it for as a means of exchange. That seems like the more important problem to solve for mass adoption. Can't have people paying for food/goods with bitcoin, it just won't work for that any more.

djtriptych 9y ago
Bitcoin has a flat transaction rate for moving any amount of value. So yes, more expensive if the amount being transferred is low, and I mean really low.
- dfox 9y ago
  Bitcoin's transaction fees are more complex than flat per transaction. It depends on the size of transaction which then in turn depends on how many incoming payments you have to combine into the amount of BTC you want to send. This has somewhat surprising and unfortunate high-level effect that the smaller transactions you do, the higher are fees for your future ones. The same is true for all cryptocurrencies where you spend transaction outputs (all bitcoin derived ones) instead of moving abstract numbers between "accounts" (ethereum), where the transaction fee is essentially flat and often insignificant. I'm not sure how Monero and Zcash works in this regard. Edit: tl;dr: problem with bitcoin's transaction fees is that they are not flat, but instead depend on non-obvious technical details of the protocol.
  - TD-Linux 9y ago
    While it is true that Bitcoin transaction sizes* vary depending on the coins available in your wallet (vs Ethereum only depends on the account), most of the volatility is based on the pricing of gas or bytes, not coin selection. Also, pertaining to the original article, it's unclear if either ring signatures or bullet proofs can be made to work with an account model. Is there any examples of this? *Bitcoin now measures transactions in weight, not size, a similar concept to Ethereum's gas (though much simpler)

freerobot 9y ago

Bitcoin will eventually pull in the fungibility of Monero. Monero will stick around only as long as it remains relevant in point out that flaw in Bitcoin.

ianmiers 9y ago

Privacy for cryptocurrencies is in its infancy. So no one has lost yet. Moreover there's space for more than one private coin. It's not zero sum. And yes, Bitcoin should probably take the most cautious path. But one of the things we need to get past is people pointing to technical progress, usually involving better performance or some clever trick, and casting it as providing privacy. This isn't a race to win on privacy, its a race to get real privacy. By default everything is totally exposed in a blockchain. It's far closer to twitter for your bank account then anonymous internet cash. There are very real differences between the types of attacks the various technologies out there protect against and it's important people understand that because right now they are totally exposed. CT, which was what you pointed to in Bitcoin, hides payment values. CT doesn't directly do anything to hide the transaction graph. It can be combined with coinjoin to partially do that, but thats not whats implied here nor does faster CT really effect that. And anyone reading certainly wouldn't ask how well either of these actually protect the transaction graph. Which is a very real question. Why does this matter? It's the difference between hiding if you overpaid for a car vs hiding if you made a controversial political donation, if you got an abortion, or your identity when purchasing controversial books or movies.