6 ms·

We’ve seen many instances of documents that weren’t highly thought of at the time of their publication, with that changing radically later. Vannevar Bush‘s ess

We’ve seen many instances of documents that weren’t highly thought of at the time of their publication, with that changing radically later. Vannevar Bush‘s essay “As We May Think” in 1945 is a visionary document that describes technologies we take for granted today more than 70 years ago. It’s possible the Bitcoin white paper will be looked at in similar ways, especially if Bitcoin ends up being one mankind’s most important inventions in addition to being a critically important financial asset.

throwaway2190 4y ago
Well, you could make the same argument for any document, including the RFCs.
alex_sf 4y ago
Yeah, but, it's really not going to be. Like, there is absolutely no chance of that, ever. Even in the very-unlikely world where some sort of decentralized cryptocurrency is used for anything other than scams and drugs, it's not going to be bitcoin, and blockchains existed for decades before bitcoin did.
- doodlesdev 4y ago
  > blockchains existed for decades before bitcoin did That's absolutely not true. Bitcoin was the first blockchain like the ones we know today, the idea existed before but no one had implemented it in a decentralized way [0][1]. Bitcoin was also the first to solve the double spending problem. [2] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Nakamoto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Nakamoto [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-spending https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-spending
  - alex_sf 4y ago
    We had DHTs, we had blockchains, and double spending was solved at least 2 years before the bitcoin white paper. Satoshi combined them together in a novel form, for sure, but it’s still largely useless.
    - eru 4y ago
      Any more background on how double spending was solved 2 years before bitcoin?
      - alex_sf 4y ago
        Sure. Whitepaper was released in 2008. Genesis block was in 2009. In 2007 we had Combating Double-Spending Using Cooperative P2P Systems[0]. Prior to both the whitepaper and the genesis block, we had Distributed Double Spending Prevention[1]. These are all particular subsets of distributed consensus problems, which have been studied in the context of CS for at least 30+ years (Consensus in the Presence of Partial Synchrony[2]). [0] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4268195 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4268195 [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/0802.0832 https://arxiv.org/abs/0802.0832 [2] http://groups.csail.mit.edu/tds/papers/Lynch/jacm88.pdf http://groups.csail.mit.edu/tds/papers/Lynch/jacm88.pdf
        eru 4y ago
        Thanks! Do you have a pet theory on why bitcoin was the first such system to take off? Why not earlier?
        ngcazz 4y ago
        the great recession of 2008
        alex_sf 4y ago
        I think it depends on what you consider to be the first such system. The earliest ones I personally recall using were Liberty Reserve and E-Gold, which were basically fine, I guess. It was a good way to send money around with less eyes on it. Before that there were things like DigiCash, but I don't know much about that one. There was a whole bunch of random ones during the 90s, but most of them were ponzis and rugpulls (some things never change). In my opinion, BTC took off in a way that others didn't for a bunch of reasons: 1) It was the first usable system that was decentralized, AFAIK. This is a pretty desirable characteristic, of course. 2) It had (and has) flaws, but there was no obvious means of it being a rug-pull or complete scam. E.g., it wasn't supposedly backed by gold/silver/whatever that didn't really exist. 3) You were able to get some bitcoin to use for 'free' by mining. Prior systems you had to buy into. The threshold to participate and profit was much lower. 4) The protocol is simple enough for those first few points to be trivial to verify. 5) It entered a sort of 'spiral' relationship with darknet markets and more general cybercrime. As those surged in popularity, the demand for bitcoin surged, which fueled interest in bitcoin, which fueled interested in markets, which.. etc.
bigbillheck 4y ago
I'm gonna need a cite on "As We May Think" not being highly thought of at the time.
EamonnMR 4y ago
> if Bitcoin ends up being one mankind’s most important inventions That seems unlikely.
- s1gnp0st 4y ago
  It's really disheartening how much unjustified disdain is heaped upon Bitcoin the technology by commenters here. You're going to claim you're certain that a solution to the Byzantine generals problem will have no useful consequences?
  - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
    > You're going to claim you're certain that a solution to the Byzantine generals problem will have no useful consequences? Yes.
    - s1gnp0st 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - culi 4y ago
        Solutions to the problem have been proposed since at least 1982. if you wanna get theoretical Bitcoin isn't even a game-theoretically unique In fact that's probably the biggest criticism in general of the technology. What does it solve? I can't really think of a single use-case that couldn't have been solved using other, existing technologies. It seems like it's just adding extra constraints with no actual benefits. And it never lives up to the supposed benefits. In terms of centralization that's turned out to pretty consistently be a false promise. One Bitcoin transaction uses about as much electricity as a US household uses in a month so it's not scalable or sustainable. The cryptography techniques aren't particularly novel except maybe the way they were put together. But you can usually get a lot more use out of just using those cryptography techniques without all the added baggage. The idea that it provides anonymity is also very false. If anything, quite the opposite. The one thing it does somewhat well is introduce scarcity where there previously was none. Which is often a major cost rather than a benefit but even when it's the main benefit it's not really an effective tool (see all the examples of non-tech-literate people buying "NFTs" as art and then finding that that encrypted URL they just bought got taken down)
imtringued 4y ago
At its best Bitcoin is just a slightly more convenient digital gold. That isn't exactly innovative. Even modern fiat is more innovative than that.
- WinstonSmith84 4y ago
  Maybe you don't know, for sure governments of Europe and North America don't advertise this, but it's used more and more in various countries. For example here in Costa Rica, the most popular country after Mexico for North Americans. People using a smartphone app leveraging the lightning network, check that video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrEDaFEW6yI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrEDaFEW6yI
  - hnbad 4y ago
    Yes, she certainly seems a reliable and unbiased source: https://www.youtube.com/@julietlima6339/videos https://www.youtube.com/@julietlima6339/videos (this is not financial advice).

throwaway2190 4y ago

Well, you could make the same argument for any document, including the RFCs.

alex_sf 4y ago

Yeah, but, it's really not going to be. Like, there is absolutely no chance of that, ever. Even in the very-unlikely world where some sort of decentralized cryptocurrency is used for anything other than scams and drugs, it's not going to be bitcoin, and blockchains existed for decades before bitcoin did.

doodlesdev 4y ago
> blockchains existed for decades before bitcoin did That's absolutely not true. Bitcoin was the first blockchain like the ones we know today, the idea existed before but no one had implemented it in a decentralized way [0][1]. Bitcoin was also the first to solve the double spending problem. [2] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Nakamoto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Nakamoto [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-spending https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-spending
- alex_sf 4y ago
  We had DHTs, we had blockchains, and double spending was solved at least 2 years before the bitcoin white paper. Satoshi combined them together in a novel form, for sure, but it’s still largely useless.
  - eru 4y ago
    Any more background on how double spending was solved 2 years before bitcoin?
    - alex_sf 4y ago
      Sure. Whitepaper was released in 2008. Genesis block was in 2009. In 2007 we had Combating Double-Spending Using Cooperative P2P Systems[0]. Prior to both the whitepaper and the genesis block, we had Distributed Double Spending Prevention[1]. These are all particular subsets of distributed consensus problems, which have been studied in the context of CS for at least 30+ years (Consensus in the Presence of Partial Synchrony[2]). [0] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4268195 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4268195 [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/0802.0832 https://arxiv.org/abs/0802.0832 [2] http://groups.csail.mit.edu/tds/papers/Lynch/jacm88.pdf http://groups.csail.mit.edu/tds/papers/Lynch/jacm88.pdf
      - eru 4y ago
        Thanks! Do you have a pet theory on why bitcoin was the first such system to take off? Why not earlier?
        ngcazz 4y ago
        the great recession of 2008
        alex_sf 4y ago
        I think it depends on what you consider to be the first such system. The earliest ones I personally recall using were Liberty Reserve and E-Gold, which were basically fine, I guess. It was a good way to send money around with less eyes on it. Before that there were things like DigiCash, but I don't know much about that one. There was a whole bunch of random ones during the 90s, but most of them were ponzis and rugpulls (some things never change). In my opinion, BTC took off in a way that others didn't for a bunch of reasons: 1) It was the first usable system that was decentralized, AFAIK. This is a pretty desirable characteristic, of course. 2) It had (and has) flaws, but there was no obvious means of it being a rug-pull or complete scam. E.g., it wasn't supposedly backed by gold/silver/whatever that didn't really exist. 3) You were able to get some bitcoin to use for 'free' by mining. Prior systems you had to buy into. The threshold to participate and profit was much lower. 4) The protocol is simple enough for those first few points to be trivial to verify. 5) It entered a sort of 'spiral' relationship with darknet markets and more general cybercrime. As those surged in popularity, the demand for bitcoin surged, which fueled interest in bitcoin, which fueled interested in markets, which.. etc.

bigbillheck 4y ago

I'm gonna need a cite on "As We May Think" not being highly thought of at the time.

EamonnMR 4y ago

> if Bitcoin ends up being one mankind’s most important inventions That seems unlikely.

s1gnp0st 4y ago
It's really disheartening how much unjustified disdain is heaped upon Bitcoin the technology by commenters here. You're going to claim you're certain that a solution to the Byzantine generals problem will have no useful consequences?
- Wowfunhappy 4y ago
  > You're going to claim you're certain that a solution to the Byzantine generals problem will have no useful consequences? Yes.
  - s1gnp0st 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - culi 4y ago
      Solutions to the problem have been proposed since at least 1982. if you wanna get theoretical Bitcoin isn't even a game-theoretically unique In fact that's probably the biggest criticism in general of the technology. What does it solve? I can't really think of a single use-case that couldn't have been solved using other, existing technologies. It seems like it's just adding extra constraints with no actual benefits. And it never lives up to the supposed benefits. In terms of centralization that's turned out to pretty consistently be a false promise. One Bitcoin transaction uses about as much electricity as a US household uses in a month so it's not scalable or sustainable. The cryptography techniques aren't particularly novel except maybe the way they were put together. But you can usually get a lot more use out of just using those cryptography techniques without all the added baggage. The idea that it provides anonymity is also very false. If anything, quite the opposite. The one thing it does somewhat well is introduce scarcity where there previously was none. Which is often a major cost rather than a benefit but even when it's the main benefit it's not really an effective tool (see all the examples of non-tech-literate people buying "NFTs" as art and then finding that that encrypted URL they just bought got taken down)

imtringued 4y ago

At its best Bitcoin is just a slightly more convenient digital gold. That isn't exactly innovative. Even modern fiat is more innovative than that.

WinstonSmith84 4y ago
Maybe you don't know, for sure governments of Europe and North America don't advertise this, but it's used more and more in various countries. For example here in Costa Rica, the most popular country after Mexico for North Americans. People using a smartphone app leveraging the lightning network, check that video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrEDaFEW6yI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrEDaFEW6yI
- hnbad 4y ago
  Yes, she certainly seems a reliable and unbiased source: https://www.youtube.com/@julietlima6339/videos https://www.youtube.com/@julietlima6339/videos (this is not financial advice).