5 ms·

I still think it's an interesting approach. If you want to be more efficient and less wasteful than Bitcoin, at some point trust has to come into play. And redu

I still think it's an interesting approach. If you want to be more efficient and less wasteful than Bitcoin, at some point trust has to come into play. And reducing your trust to the manufacturers of secure enclaves (whose products can also be audited to a degree) is surely an improvement still, even if it doesn't have the radical threat model of conventional cryptocurrencies (which inevitably run into scaling problems because it mostly requires proof-of-work). Also, the article mentions the de facto centralization of trust in the current cryptocurrency ecosystem - so pragmatically, it's not much better there. From centralized exchanges, to centralized mining cartels, what does something like Bitcoin have left to offer?

nebulous1 9y ago
Bitcoin uses proof-of-work for its consensus system, but not all cryptocurrencies do. Bitcoin is a technological wonder, but it's ultimately not as advanced as its younger brethren. The Stellar Consensus Protocol, which MobileCoin say they're using, uses something more akin to a web of trust rather than proof-of-work. You do not need the SGX to get rid of proof-of-work.
- eternalban 9y ago
  > Bitcoin is a technological wonder Oh, dear lord. > ultimately not as advanced as its younger brethren. These must then be simply out of this world. Superwonder technologies. Double digit transactions per second!! /$ The hype around this piece of software is getting out of hand.
  - hossbeast 9y ago
    Perhaps you do not understand it's revolutionary aspects.
    - pishpash 9y ago
      Nothing revolutionary about distributed consensus. It was the 2008 financial crisis that brought the anti-banking crowd into frenzy, seeing all sorts of claimed benefits in using this sort of thing for money. They would have been goldbugs or tulip collectors under other circumstances. Or do you mean the revolutionary scamming techniques never seen before? /s
      - tylersmith 9y ago
        Trustless Byzantine fault tolerant decentralized consensus as long as < 50% of participants are not acting in concert. That _is_ revolutionary.
        amscanne 9y ago
        Not consensus, probabilistic consensus. And not 50% of participants, 50% of computing power. Those are critical distinctions.
        darawk 9y ago
        But distinctions that make it no less revolutionary.
        pishpash 9y ago
        Probabilistic consensus was not known before bitcoin? Somehow I highly doubt it.
        kolinko 9y ago
        One that was resistant to sybil attacks? Bitcoin was the first system to do that as far as I know. Before bitcoin you would be unable to create a virtual currency without a central authority. Satoshi's algorithm was a new invention in 2009, although it's parts - like proof of Work - were invented in 1990s.
        darawk 9y ago
    - JohnStrange 9y ago
      Bitcoin and other crypto coins are a neat idea until their underlying cryptographic primitives are broken. Then they will immediately loose all of their value. Every cryptosystem of the past has been broken at some time.
      - loblollyboy 9y ago
        Bitcoin has problems but I really don’t think that is one of them https://www.quora.com/Has-the-Bitcoin-blockchain-itself-ever-been-hacked https://www.quora.com/Has-the-Bitcoin-blockchain-itself-ever...
      - oarsinsync 9y ago
        Indeed. The coin is only as strong as it's cryptography, and given enough time, all ciphers can and will be broken. Until that happens, there's still money to be made!
        tatersolid 9y ago
        > and given enough time, all ciphers can and will be broken Not all ciphers... 3DES and GOST have no practical breaks after 40 years of cryptanalysis (all attacks have > 2^100 time or memory complexity) Any secure modern 256 bit symmetric primitive is likely safe from large quantum computers. What will continue to be be broken are encryption protocols and systems that misuse modern secure 256-bit primitives. So we will continue to see things like the BEAST attack because non-cryptographers continue to invent their own encryption protocols with alarming frequency.
  - sametmax 9y ago
    I read that like: "a stone wheel ? man it's not revolutionary at all. It's heavy. And hard to make. It's not practical and currently unusable for real purposes." Said by a guy you just witness the historical invention of the wheel.
    - eternalban 9y ago
      Just witnessed? I knew about bitcoin long before you did. I assure you of that. About the wheel. Rolling friction is less than sliding friction... Regrettably that point is probably over your head. +1 for your ad hom.
    - eternalban 9y ago
      point 1: The wheel was, in fact, one of the first instances of a centralized structure replacing an inefficieint distributed structure. The central "hub" of a wheel bears the load and the "edge condition" is the substantially reduced "rolling friction". This is in contrast to ye old "distributed load" way of a zillion poor slaves pulling a load. So as far as the "wheel" goes, VISA is a chariot, and Bitcoin is an army of slaves pulling a wheel-less load. And in fact, the "facts", prove this. Almost 400 KWh per transaction, and that at the feeble rate of 7 tx/sec. That is your "technological wonder". point 2: "Technological wonder[s]" of this time -- now -- are Machine Learning, CRISPR, etc. These are the "inventions" to pay attention to, not a thinly disguised play by private wealth to finally fully take out the national governments from the monetary system loop. That CJW -- Crypto Justice Warriors -- like you fail to see this is the actual "wonder".
      - fapjacks 9y ago
        I couldn't not read your post without hearing your every word dripping with seething anger and disappointment. While your post contains information that has lots of merit, I can't help but see the person that typed this reply as a Big Money VP or someone that's either lost a bunch of money "investing" in crypto, or really fucking pissed they didn't hold onto their Bitcoin. But just to preemptively defuse a reply, here's a funny story: I started mining Bitcoin really early, back when CPU mining was the only thing to do. I ended up selling them (a couple thousand) in January of 2012 to put the down payment on my car.
nileshtrivedi 9y ago
> If you want to be more efficient and less wasteful than Bitcoin, at some point trust has to come into play. In that case, one might as well go with any of the permissioned blockchains (such as Interplanetary database where the nodes are run by reputed non-profits for a minimal fee).
olalonde 9y ago
> From centralized exchanges, to centralized mining cartels, what does something like Bitcoin have left to offer? I'd say you're being overdramatic here. Mining is still decentralised and if there are any mining cartels, they haven't abused their position yet. It's still possible to buy, sell and spend Bitcoin peer to peer as well.
- homakov 9y ago
  > Mining is still decentralised Wait what, no.
- garmaine 9y ago
  > I'd say you're being overdramatic here. Mining is still decentralised Controlled by a handful of people is absolutely not decentralized. They have abused their power. Ghash double spends. Segwit blocked for a year. Bitcoin cash proxy support.
  - makomk 9y ago
    I think part of the reason Segwit2x failed is that, ultimately, mining wasn't as centralized as everyone assumed. Its proponents had the backing of the major mining pools who controlled the vast majority of the mining power - or so they thought - but it turned out enough of the actual miners had views too and were happy to switch pools to express them that it suddenly looked a lot more precarious than expected.
mtgx 9y ago
It's far from ideal though. I think it's actually worse than using banks from a centralization point of view, because you can typically choose between multiple banks. In this case you only have one single point of failure: Intel. If that breaks, what then? From a pure efficiency/centralization perspective, there are likely better cryptocurrencies out there. I think Ethereum's sharding network is interesting, too, and it seems to maintain a high-degree of decentralization, but I don't know how easy it will be to implement: https://youtu.be/9RtSod8EXn4?t=3h10m7s https://youtu.be/9RtSod8EXn4?t=3h10m7s
kolinko 9y ago
> I still think it's an interesting approach. If you want to be more efficient and less wasteful than Bitcoin, at some point trust has to come into play Did you read about Ethereum's Casper and proof of stake? Or dpos - implemented in Eos et all?
celticninja 9y ago
You can either audit something fully or not at all. Your secure enclaves cannot be audited, it would be a pointless task, if you find nothing it just means it could be in the area you cannot audit. if you do find something then it almost guarantees that something else exists in the secure enclaves.

nebulous1 9y ago

Bitcoin uses proof-of-work for its consensus system, but not all cryptocurrencies do. Bitcoin is a technological wonder, but it's ultimately not as advanced as its younger brethren. The Stellar Consensus Protocol, which MobileCoin say they're using, uses something more akin to a web of trust rather than proof-of-work. You do not need the SGX to get rid of proof-of-work.

eternalban 9y ago
> Bitcoin is a technological wonder Oh, dear lord. > ultimately not as advanced as its younger brethren. These must then be simply out of this world. Superwonder technologies. Double digit transactions per second!! /$ The hype around this piece of software is getting out of hand.
- hossbeast 9y ago
  Perhaps you do not understand it's revolutionary aspects.
  - pishpash 9y ago
    Nothing revolutionary about distributed consensus. It was the 2008 financial crisis that brought the anti-banking crowd into frenzy, seeing all sorts of claimed benefits in using this sort of thing for money. They would have been goldbugs or tulip collectors under other circumstances. Or do you mean the revolutionary scamming techniques never seen before? /s
    - tylersmith 9y ago
      Trustless Byzantine fault tolerant decentralized consensus as long as < 50% of participants are not acting in concert. That _is_ revolutionary.
      - amscanne 9y ago
        Not consensus, probabilistic consensus. And not 50% of participants, 50% of computing power. Those are critical distinctions.
        darawk 9y ago
        But distinctions that make it no less revolutionary.
        pishpash 9y ago
        Probabilistic consensus was not known before bitcoin? Somehow I highly doubt it.
        kolinko 9y ago
        One that was resistant to sybil attacks? Bitcoin was the first system to do that as far as I know. Before bitcoin you would be unable to create a virtual currency without a central authority. Satoshi's algorithm was a new invention in 2009, although it's parts - like proof of Work - were invented in 1990s.
        darawk 9y ago
  - JohnStrange 9y ago
    Bitcoin and other crypto coins are a neat idea until their underlying cryptographic primitives are broken. Then they will immediately loose all of their value. Every cryptosystem of the past has been broken at some time.
    - loblollyboy 9y ago
      Bitcoin has problems but I really don’t think that is one of them https://www.quora.com/Has-the-Bitcoin-blockchain-itself-ever-been-hacked https://www.quora.com/Has-the-Bitcoin-blockchain-itself-ever...
    - oarsinsync 9y ago
      Indeed. The coin is only as strong as it's cryptography, and given enough time, all ciphers can and will be broken. Until that happens, there's still money to be made!
      - tatersolid 9y ago
        > and given enough time, all ciphers can and will be broken Not all ciphers... 3DES and GOST have no practical breaks after 40 years of cryptanalysis (all attacks have > 2^100 time or memory complexity) Any secure modern 256 bit symmetric primitive is likely safe from large quantum computers. What will continue to be be broken are encryption protocols and systems that misuse modern secure 256-bit primitives. So we will continue to see things like the BEAST attack because non-cryptographers continue to invent their own encryption protocols with alarming frequency.
- sametmax 9y ago
  I read that like: "a stone wheel ? man it's not revolutionary at all. It's heavy. And hard to make. It's not practical and currently unusable for real purposes." Said by a guy you just witness the historical invention of the wheel.
  - eternalban 9y ago
    Just witnessed? I knew about bitcoin long before you did. I assure you of that. About the wheel. Rolling friction is less than sliding friction... Regrettably that point is probably over your head. +1 for your ad hom.
  - eternalban 9y ago
    point 1: The wheel was, in fact, one of the first instances of a centralized structure replacing an inefficieint distributed structure. The central "hub" of a wheel bears the load and the "edge condition" is the substantially reduced "rolling friction". This is in contrast to ye old "distributed load" way of a zillion poor slaves pulling a load. So as far as the "wheel" goes, VISA is a chariot, and Bitcoin is an army of slaves pulling a wheel-less load. And in fact, the "facts", prove this. Almost 400 KWh per transaction, and that at the feeble rate of 7 tx/sec. That is your "technological wonder". point 2: "Technological wonder[s]" of this time -- now -- are Machine Learning, CRISPR, etc. These are the "inventions" to pay attention to, not a thinly disguised play by private wealth to finally fully take out the national governments from the monetary system loop. That CJW -- Crypto Justice Warriors -- like you fail to see this is the actual "wonder".
    - fapjacks 9y ago
      I couldn't not read your post without hearing your every word dripping with seething anger and disappointment. While your post contains information that has lots of merit, I can't help but see the person that typed this reply as a Big Money VP or someone that's either lost a bunch of money "investing" in crypto, or really fucking pissed they didn't hold onto their Bitcoin. But just to preemptively defuse a reply, here's a funny story: I started mining Bitcoin really early, back when CPU mining was the only thing to do. I ended up selling them (a couple thousand) in January of 2012 to put the down payment on my car.

nileshtrivedi 9y ago

> If you want to be more efficient and less wasteful than Bitcoin, at some point trust has to come into play. In that case, one might as well go with any of the permissioned blockchains (such as Interplanetary database where the nodes are run by reputed non-profits for a minimal fee).

olalonde 9y ago

> From centralized exchanges, to centralized mining cartels, what does something like Bitcoin have left to offer? I'd say you're being overdramatic here. Mining is still decentralised and if there are any mining cartels, they haven't abused their position yet. It's still possible to buy, sell and spend Bitcoin peer to peer as well.

homakov 9y ago
> Mining is still decentralised Wait what, no.
garmaine 9y ago
> I'd say you're being overdramatic here. Mining is still decentralised Controlled by a handful of people is absolutely not decentralized. They have abused their power. Ghash double spends. Segwit blocked for a year. Bitcoin cash proxy support.
- makomk 9y ago
  I think part of the reason Segwit2x failed is that, ultimately, mining wasn't as centralized as everyone assumed. Its proponents had the backing of the major mining pools who controlled the vast majority of the mining power - or so they thought - but it turned out enough of the actual miners had views too and were happy to switch pools to express them that it suddenly looked a lot more precarious than expected.

mtgx 9y ago

It's far from ideal though. I think it's actually worse than using banks from a centralization point of view, because you can typically choose between multiple banks. In this case you only have one single point of failure: Intel. If that breaks, what then? From a pure efficiency/centralization perspective, there are likely better cryptocurrencies out there. I think Ethereum's sharding network is interesting, too, and it seems to maintain a high-degree of decentralization, but I don't know how easy it will be to implement: https://youtu.be/9RtSod8EXn4?t=3h10m7s https://youtu.be/9RtSod8EXn4?t=3h10m7s

kolinko 9y ago

> I still think it's an interesting approach. If you want to be more efficient and less wasteful than Bitcoin, at some point trust has to come into play Did you read about Ethereum's Casper and proof of stake? Or dpos - implemented in Eos et all?

celticninja 9y ago

You can either audit something fully or not at all. Your secure enclaves cannot be audited, it would be a pointless task, if you find nothing it just means it could be in the area you cannot audit. if you do find something then it almost guarantees that something else exists in the secure enclaves.