4 ms·
The author posted a full throated and mocking anti-bitcoin article in 2014 [1] when the bitcoin price was $300. Since then, bitcoin has thrived, and so has cryp
by marcell 5y ago
The author posted a full throated and mocking anti-bitcoin article in 2014 [1] when the bitcoin price was $300. Since then, bitcoin has thrived, and so has cryptocurrency in general. BTC is up 100x since Peter posted his original article.
A lot of anti-bitcoin crowd gets ego invested in their opposition, and the result is articles like this, which misunderstand the fundamentals of bitcoin.
[1] https://www.kalzumeus.com/2014/08/05/harry-potter-and-the-cryptocurrency-of-stars/ https://www.kalzumeus.com/2014/08/05/harry-potter-and-the-cr...
- lxgr 5y agoIn what way would you say that the current article is misunderstanding the fundamentals of Bitcoin? I'd argue that it merely contextualizes in-system (technical) finality in the larger context of "social/legal finality".
- marcell 5y agoSee another reply above mine: transactions never got reversed on blockchain. Outside chain activities, like seizing private keys, are fundamentally different in bitcoin.
- stickfigure 5y agoI'm not sure this is so different from "reversing" charges in the traditional banking system. It's not like someone issues a DELETE FROM to remove the original transfer; they just create a new transfer that puts the money back. Just like bitcoin.
- beaned 5y agoIt's not just like Bitcoin, because if the keys aren't accessible, nothing can be done.
- lxgr 5y agoYes, as a system, Bitcoin does not offer an "undo button" in the way that other payment systems do. What I'm getting out of the article is that this is less relevant than people generally assume.
- AlexandrB 5y ago> Since then, bitcoin has thrived, and so has cryptocurrency in general. BTC is up 100x since Peter posted his original article. This kind of argument shows up a lot, but is a classic example of "appeal to popularity". Whether bitcoin goes to $0 or $1,000,000 is mostly irrelevant when discussing technological and practical merits of bitcoin. Where the price of bitcoin is relevant is when discussing it as a speculative investment. So what tends to happen is a conversation that was supposed to be about blockchain technology turns into one about blockchain speculative investing. This and appeals to greed/FOMO ("have fun staying poor") tend to drive me nuts about a lot of blockchain discussions. > A lot of anti-bitcoin crowd gets ego invested in their opposition, and the result is articles like this, which misunderstand the fundamentals of bitcoin. If a "no-coiner" has high ego investment in their position, what level of ego investment does someone holding cryptocurrency have? And what specifically does this article misunderstand about the fundamentals of bitcoin? Just stating that the article misunderstands something is not a very strong argument or rebuttal.
- audleman 5y agoThe article claims that bitcoin transactions are reversible, which they are not. He substitues the feds seizing the private keys and making new transactions as reversals.
- lxgr 5y agoSure, that is what the article literally says ("the Feds can move your Bitcoin without your private keys!"), but I think the point he's trying to make is more along the lines of "in-system transaction finality isn't everything".
- exolymph 5y agoThe point is that he's so wrong about the highest-order bit, and unable to admit it, that it makes no sense to listen to him about the details.