29 ms·

I'm not quite sure where did the author found those "cryptocurrency promises". Bitcoin's promises from the start are straightforward: - P2P money/value transfe

• sgjohnson 4y ago
  > - nobody owns Bitcoin network => delivered; For a state actor it would actually be quite trivial to mount a >50% attack. If you own >50% of the hashrate, you own the network.
  • pharmakom 4y ago
    I doubt it would work in practice. If an actor repeatedly used ASICs to run a 51% attack, it wouldn’t take long for the community to switch hashing algorithm and render all that hardware useless.
    • pishpash 4y ago
      How is "the community" going to switch when "the community" includes the 51%?
      • pharmakom 4y ago
        Everyone in the community who isn’t the 51% attacker would want to switch because a crypto that is vulnerable in this way has little value.
  • 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
    if someone "mounts" a 50% attack and is successful, do you think the rest of the world will simply accept their "attack"? bitcoin was forked into bitcoin cash once, why cant it happen again?
    • sgjohnson 4y ago
      The bitcoin cash fork is incomparable, because it wasn't done because Bitcoin itself was under attack. It doesn't even matter if there'd be a fork. It would be a significant disruption at the very least.
    • pishpash 4y ago
      By what mechanism would they not accept? Sure you can leave and create a new network, as much as you can choose one of the many other cryptos already out there.
  • qabqabaca 4y ago
    While it may be trivial in implementation, its unrealistic due to the cost. >In reality, the Bitcoin network has proven resilient enough to withstand a 51% attack over the years. In fact, due to the size of the Bitcoin network and the extent to which hash power is decentralized, along with the cost of mining equipment, it’s prohibitively expensive to attack Bitcoin. We estimate it would cost over $13 billion https://learn.eqonex.com/news/what-51-attack-and-how-much-would-it-cost https://learn.eqonex.com/news/what-51-attack-and-how-much-wo...
    • sgjohnson 4y ago
      > We estimate it would cost over $13 billion So basically it's less than what the U.S. Federal Government spends in one day (FY2021 spending totalled $6.83tn). Unrealistic.
      • tenuousemphasis 4y ago
        That's $13 billion for the hardware, and $1 million per day in electricity assuming a cost of $0.01/kWh
        • Sparyjerry 4y ago
          $13 billion is a drop in the bucket for governments. The have been passing Trillion dollar bills for some time.
  • tenuousemphasis 4y ago
    You have to continue executing the 51% attack forever, or else when you stop, the network goes back to normal. And about the worst thing you can do during such an attack is prevent transactions from confirming. You can't unilaterally rewrite the ledger, you can't steal money from people. So saying you "own the network" while executing such an attack is... pretty dumb.
    • sgjohnson 4y ago
      > And about the worst thing you can do during such an attack is prevent transactions from confirming. You can also double, triple or quadripule spend bitcoins and have those transactions confirm. Yes, they’ll get marked as double spends, along with everything down that chain, but that’ll only happen once the network goes back to normal, and it would absolutely wreak havoc. So no, it’s not just “all you can do is a denial of service”.
• mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
  >- P2P money/value transfer, no banks, no intermediary => delivered; Except I need an exhange to get the coins and turn the coins into usable currency >nobody owns Bitcoin network => delivered; Meh, the biggest investors are still in control in practice. >- no government with no amount of regulation can stop a transaction from happening => delivered; Yet they can claim taxes on transactions, seize funds, stop you from exhanging the funds into usable currency. But yeah they can't stop the transaction itself, which is also true of cash, except cash isn't also completely traceable. >- everybody can take a part in Bitcoin network, you don't need anyone permission to join (ie. oppressive government) => delivered; Last time I bought some bitcoin I had to scan my passport just to buy it on an exchange.
  • sgjohnson 4y ago
    > Last time I bought some bitcoin I had to scan my passport just to buy it on an exchange. There are plenty of exchanges that don't care one bit about KYC. Of course, you get a significantly shittier exchange rate and sometimes waiting times of up to 90 days before you can do anything with your coins.
    • Teandw 4y ago
      That means dealing with exchanges that are likely involved in illegal activities so a kind of mute point.
      • sgjohnson 4y ago
        The only illegal activity they engage in is not giving a damn about KYC or AML laws. Which is fine by me.
        • Teandw 4y ago
          What a weird response.
      • joncrocks 4y ago
        Moot point. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/moot-or-mute https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/moot-or-mute
• Teandw 4y ago
  The issue with those promises is that they're pretty much empty promises because while they are true at their core, they don't hold much basis in reality for every day use. "P2P money/value transfer, no banks, no intermediary => delivered;" At it's core, yes. For any sort of adoption/usage ability for the 'average day person', there will always be a requirement for some sort of intermediary company. "nobody owns Bitcoin network => delivered;" At it's core, yes. However, having no 'owner' is rather meaningless as governments can regulate it and decide how Bitcoin is used; which has the same effects/problems as an 'owner'. "no government with no amount of regulation can stop a transaction from happening" At it's core, yes. However, again, this is pretty much meaningless because they can make it illegal for a transaction to happen or they can make transactions allowed but under their rules. - everybody can take a part in Bitcoin network, you don't need anyone permission to join (ie. oppressive government) At it's core, yes. But again it's not based on reality of life. If an oppressive government outlawed bitcoin, you wouldn't be able to take part in the Bitcoin network unless you wanted to break the law. Bitcoin would be on its knees if the only people that could use it were purely illegal users. (compared to its current situation)
  • ecmascript 4y ago
    > At it's core, yes. For any sort of adoption/usage ability for the 'average day person', there will always be a requirement for some sort of intermediary company. Even if this may be true, these services can still be decentralized for the most part. For example there is localbitcoins where you can trade bitcoins without ever having to go to any other third party except the listing on the site. > At it's core, yes. However, having no 'owner' is rather meaningless as governments can regulate it and decide how Bitcoin is used; which has the same effects/problems as an 'owner'. > [...] However, again, this is pretty much meaningless because they can make it illegal for a transaction to happen or they can make transactions allowed but under their rules. Governments can regulate it but it's going to be hard to follow through if you take proper precautions. If you live in an oppressive state you most likely break the law all the time any way. That's the thing about oppressive regimes, it's almost impossible to abide by the law completely and life a proper life. > But again it's not based on reality of life. If an oppressive government outlawed bitcoin, you wouldn't be able to take part in the Bitcoin network unless you wanted to break the law. Bitcoin would be on its knees if the only people that could use it were purely illegal users. (compared to its current situation) You don't even need to live in an oppressive government. I live in a western society and still see the value of cryptocurrencies. Whenever I talk to a bank I have a strong feeling that cryptocurrencies are the future and my recent connections with my bank completely convinced me. I don't know where you live, but in my country banks are open like 10am to 2pm, there is no handling of cash at all basically and their customer service is completely shit. It's obvious that their power over the society is so strong that they feel they can treat their customers like total crap and get away with it. I know of many people that have had their accounts closed because they have incorrect political opinions, use too much cash or doesn't want to answer questions about what they're going to use their money for. If I have cash, I cannot submit them to my bank account without being harassed and there is a very small limit on the amount of cash I can deposit even if I take the harassment. I also have to travel quite far to a special office with open hours like a couple of hours per week and call them before hand to inform them that I want to do a cash deposit. That is only for deposits, but the same rules also apply for withdrawals where people simply get denied from withdrawing money from the accounts. If you go to an automated place, usually you can only withdraw about $200-$500 if you're lucky. If you want to withdraw more you need again go to a special office with horrible opening hours where they again will harass you, ask you a bunch of questions. My father that does this regularly usually loudly claims he's going to buy sex toys in order circumvent the system and shame the person into stop asking more questions. This is a description of real life in the western democracy of Sweden which is often described like a poster child for western democracies. This is why I believe in cryptocurrencies, because even in one of the most open societies on earth you get treated as a criminal while the banks themselves launder millions. I used to be negative towards cryptocurrencies, but I am totally convinced that it is the future now because there is no other real alternative that's not a dystopia.
• zmxz 4y ago
  Bitcoin was meant to be used. It's being held instead of used. Its primary purpose is destroyed. We keep pretending as if crypto market isn't a get rich quick scheme that draws in naive people who invest (and lose). Everything you wrote is true, except that the tool isn't being used for what it's made for and we keep playing possum, refusing to realize that each and every one of us is the same as these "evil" regulatory bodies that we're apparently at odds with. Crypto, used for money purposes - failed. And the reason is human selfish nature and desire to get ahead with little or no effort.
  • survirtual 4y ago
    U235 was meant to be used to accelerate society via free energy. It’s being held in the Earth instead, steadily decaying with time. It’s primary purpose as been destroyed. The thing about U235 is that it has no such purpose. It is a tool that can be used in all kinds of ways. If humans were better, we could have power all of civilization in an age of abundance and peace, until unlocking a more portable fusion energy source than the sun. Unfortunately, most human beings lack that desire. It was used to blow people up instead, and brought us an age at least without large scale world war. Crypto is being used in a greedy, speculative way. It doesn’t need to be. It could also run an entire world’s economy absent corrupt intermediaries. Fundamentally it will not change human nature, but it makes guarantees that anyone can verify. Which is desperately needed in a world of otherwise unaccountable money. Just because people wield a tool poorly does not change the nature of the tool. These things have no emotions, they just exist. And bitcoin as a tool is an incredible invention. I just wish more people could appreciate it for what it is.
    • danaris 4y ago
      U235 is a physical element that exists (in small quantities) naturally, and a deliberate process was discovered to make more. The universe had no "purpose" or "meaning" in mind for U235, because (philosophical discussions aside) the universe has no consciousness, agency, or intent. Bitcoin was not discovered. It is entirely man-made, and its creators absolutely had purposes and meanings in mind for it when they created it. Equating the two is unhelpful and disingenuous.
• bowsamic 4y ago
  There's two ways in which bitcoin is less decentralised than you make it seem 1. Proof of work has a strong economy of scale, the cost per amount of mining reward gets less as your mining infrastructure increases, incentivising huge mining pools. I expect that within a few years 90% of the hash power will be controlled by 2 or 3 large organisations. Even at 33% hash power you can do funky things to fuck up the chain, but of course at 51% it is game over. Proof of stake is favourable because it has no economy of reward: you get rewards exactly proportional to what you stake. Really both are bad because they're both plutocratic 2. As far as I can tell, a vast majority of nodes run Bitcoin Core, which is a single community-developed piece of software. All of the nodes run this same piece of software, so the blockchain is really an emergent system from this one piece of software. Of course this makes the network bug prone, but it also means that it's only luck that the community hasn't decided on hard forks which effectively will force everyone to move over to a new version of the chain. Not only this, but soft forks are also coercive in a similar way It is not yet clear that bitcoin will continue to deliver on its promise of decentralisation