6 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- pcthrowaway 4y ago
  We had linked lists of hashes which themselves referenced hash-tables, and we had a solution to the Byzantine Generals problem, but the bitcoin whitepaper combined them, and the combination of those two properties (not even tied to the consensus mechanism) is the thing people are talking about when they use the word "blockchain" now
  - alex_sf 4y ago
    > Satoshi combined them together in a novel form, for sure, but it’s still largely useless.
    - alchemist1e9 4y ago
      You seem to have a odd definition of “useless”.
      - alex_sf 4y ago
        It's only useful for speculation, scams, and drugs. What other utility does it have?
        tempera 4y ago
        Sending money on the internet without a trusted third-party. I think that's revolutionary.
        alex_sf 4y ago
        There is a ton of trusted third parties involved. You're trusting: - The KYC of your exchange, and any exchange in the coins path - The wallet you're using - The recipient to provide the correct address - The exchange rate And you're trusting all of that hasn't been tampered with, which involves even more trusted parties. It requires an order of magnitude less trust to send cash in the mail. It's cheaper, too.
        4y ago
- olalonde 4y ago
  No.
  - alex_sf 4y ago
    Wow, that's a great point. I hadn't even thought to approach it like that.
    - olalonde 4y ago
      I mean the whole comment is wrong and I mean not just a little, like straight misinformation. > We had DHTs, we had blockchains, and double spending was solved at least 2 years before the bitcoin white paper. - Bitcoin doesn't use DHTs. - The term blockchain was coined after the Bitcoin white paper was published, to describe the mechanism used in Bitcoin. - Bitcoin was the first system to solve the double spending problem in a decentralized way. > Satoshi combined them together in a novel form, for sure, but it’s still largely useless. The network is actively used. Just yesterday, there were 345K on chain Bitcoin transactions totaling a value of around 4 billion USD.
      - alchemist1e9 4y ago
        No-coiners are exhausting. Bitcoin triggers a deep psychological anxiety in some people and their reaction is to construct these defensive arguments in their heads about why Bitcoin is stupid, a scam, useless, etc. If in another 10 years it continues it’s success and we have widespread point of sale usage and micropayments etc, and value is, maybe $200K/coin. Then these people might require some type of specialized psychological therapy to handle their disbelief. On the other hand, Bitcoiners even if it crashes to zero somehow, will be saying at least we tried, oh well. Bitcoin opinions are some type of strange personality litmus test. I find it very curious as the test result feels very unpredictable for me when applied to people I know well.
        alex_sf 4y ago
        > No-coiners are exhausting. More than naive cryptobros? > Bitcoin triggers a deep psychological anxiety in some people and their reaction is to construct these defensive arguments in their heads about why Bitcoin is stupid, a scam, useless, etc. It is obviously stupid, slow, and wasteful. Ignoring all the other problems with cryptocurrencies, just on those three axes ETH is superior. > If in another 10 years it continues it’s success and we have widespread point of sale usage and micropayments etc, and value is, maybe $200K/coin. Then these people might require some type of specialized psychological therapy to handle their disbelief. You love to monologue, huh? > On the other hand, Bitcoiners even if it crashes to zero somehow, will be saying at least we tried, oh well. A great sign of a moron is that they attach themselves to non-falsifiable ideas so they can't be wrong. > Bitcoin opinions are some type of strange personality litmus test. I find it very curious as the test result feels very unpredictable for me when applied to people I know well. It's very predictable. Is someone naive to the point of being borderline childlike? Wants to get-rich-quick? Hates the government? Bitcoin fan.

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.
pcthrowaway 4y ago
We had linked lists of hashes which themselves referenced hash-tables, and we had a solution to the Byzantine Generals problem, but the bitcoin whitepaper combined them, and the combination of those two properties (not even tied to the consensus mechanism) is the thing people are talking about when they use the word "blockchain" now
- alex_sf 4y ago
  > Satoshi combined them together in a novel form, for sure, but it’s still largely useless.
  - alchemist1e9 4y ago
    You seem to have a odd definition of “useless”.
    - alex_sf 4y ago
      It's only useful for speculation, scams, and drugs. What other utility does it have?
      - tempera 4y ago
        Sending money on the internet without a trusted third-party. I think that's revolutionary.
        alex_sf 4y ago
        There is a ton of trusted third parties involved. You're trusting: - The KYC of your exchange, and any exchange in the coins path - The wallet you're using - The recipient to provide the correct address - The exchange rate And you're trusting all of that hasn't been tampered with, which involves even more trusted parties. It requires an order of magnitude less trust to send cash in the mail. It's cheaper, too.
        4y ago
olalonde 4y ago
No.
- alex_sf 4y ago
  Wow, that's a great point. I hadn't even thought to approach it like that.
  - olalonde 4y ago
    I mean the whole comment is wrong and I mean not just a little, like straight misinformation. > We had DHTs, we had blockchains, and double spending was solved at least 2 years before the bitcoin white paper. - Bitcoin doesn't use DHTs. - The term blockchain was coined after the Bitcoin white paper was published, to describe the mechanism used in Bitcoin. - Bitcoin was the first system to solve the double spending problem in a decentralized way. > Satoshi combined them together in a novel form, for sure, but it’s still largely useless. The network is actively used. Just yesterday, there were 345K on chain Bitcoin transactions totaling a value of around 4 billion USD.
    - alchemist1e9 4y ago
      No-coiners are exhausting. Bitcoin triggers a deep psychological anxiety in some people and their reaction is to construct these defensive arguments in their heads about why Bitcoin is stupid, a scam, useless, etc. If in another 10 years it continues it’s success and we have widespread point of sale usage and micropayments etc, and value is, maybe $200K/coin. Then these people might require some type of specialized psychological therapy to handle their disbelief. On the other hand, Bitcoiners even if it crashes to zero somehow, will be saying at least we tried, oh well. Bitcoin opinions are some type of strange personality litmus test. I find it very curious as the test result feels very unpredictable for me when applied to people I know well.
      - alex_sf 4y ago
        > No-coiners are exhausting. More than naive cryptobros? > Bitcoin triggers a deep psychological anxiety in some people and their reaction is to construct these defensive arguments in their heads about why Bitcoin is stupid, a scam, useless, etc. It is obviously stupid, slow, and wasteful. Ignoring all the other problems with cryptocurrencies, just on those three axes ETH is superior. > If in another 10 years it continues it’s success and we have widespread point of sale usage and micropayments etc, and value is, maybe $200K/coin. Then these people might require some type of specialized psychological therapy to handle their disbelief. You love to monologue, huh? > On the other hand, Bitcoiners even if it crashes to zero somehow, will be saying at least we tried, oh well. A great sign of a moron is that they attach themselves to non-falsifiable ideas so they can't be wrong. > Bitcoin opinions are some type of strange personality litmus test. I find it very curious as the test result feels very unpredictable for me when applied to people I know well. It's very predictable. Is someone naive to the point of being borderline childlike? Wants to get-rich-quick? Hates the government? Bitcoin fan.