5 ms·

Bitcoin has several huge flaws that make it just a toy. The first is that it is insecure. As seen by the constant incidents of stolen and lost bitcoin's. Phy

by soup10 15y ago

Bitcoin has several huge flaws that make it just a toy. The first is that it is insecure. As seen by the constant incidents of stolen and lost bitcoin's. Physical currency is much more secure than a string of bits sitting on a hard drive, the solution to this is having bitcoin banks that assume responsibility for the bits, but that defeats the purpose. The second is that it's much less convenient than cash. The third is that the distribution system is set up as ponzi scheme where early adopters reap enormous amounts of wealth if they recruit more bitcoin users(which is why the bitcoin astroturfing is so persistent), people generally don't like participating in ponzi schemes. In addition to this the implementation is known to be technically flawed and vulnerable to attack. The system is easily disrupted by a sufficiently interested and funded party.

ewillbefull 15y ago
I don't know if this is a troll post, but I'll humor it anyway. > The first is that it is insecure. As seen by the constant incidents of stolen and lost bitcoin's. If this is the standard by which you deem a currency insecure, you may want to be more specific. Physical goods are also susceptible to theft. > Physical currency is much more secure than a string of bits sitting on a hard drive This isn't really substantiated by anything, and I implore you to read about paper wallets. But you're also ignoring another useful characteristic of bitcoin: coins cannot be counterfeited, unlike any other currency. They are crytographically ensured. The security of your funds is not inherently endangered by the network by any means. I can accept bitcoin donations anonymously and there is no way they can be targeted without additional context. With physical transactions, there is always location. > The second is that it's much less convenient than cash. Cash is much less convenient than digital transactions. Have you heard of a credit card? Cash is only useful for anonymity. > The third is that the distribution system is set up as ponzi scheme where early adopters reap enormous amounts of wealth if they recruit more bitcoin users(which is why the bitcoin astroturfing is so persistent), people generally don't like participating in ponzi schemes. The currency incentivizes its own operation, yes, but this is not even close to a ponzi scheme -- you should look that term up. The technology does not distinguish early adopters from other participants.
- politician 15y ago
  You'll admit, though, that a bitcoin lost is lost forever, and that at some point the rate of lost bitcoins will exceed the rate of newly minted bitcoins. Even if it attains 100% adoption, the current system will simply dissipate. In that sense, if not insecure, it certainly isn't resilient.
  - stuhood 15y ago
    The current encoding of bitcoin on the wire allows for division to 8 decimal places, but there is discussion around improving the encoding sooner, rather than later. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Divisibility_extension https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Divisibility_extension
  - stevenwagner 15y ago
    There is no requirement for any number of coins to be in the system. The amounts are infinitely divisible. You could start the economy with 1 bitcoin, and break it into 7 billion fractions for everyone to share..and if all those are lost, you could do the same with the last 1 bitcoin again.
    - politician 15y ago
      > There is no requirement for any number of coins to be in the system. The math works out such that there are a precise number of bitcoins in the system, ~21M IIRC. > The amounts are infinitely divisible. 8 decimal places. Is that alot? Yes, but my point was that the current system is leaky. The rate of leakage may not be too bad now, but as the adoption rate goes up more careless nontechnical folks will get involved. Those people will fail to backup their wallets; that BTC will evaporate is an inevitable consequence of success.
      - Anderkent 15y ago
        >8 decimal places This is a client-specific value, and not a necessary property of the protocol. They can become arbitrarily divisible by simply modifying the client code. Of course new clients will not be compatible with old clients.

by soup10 15y ago

ewillbefull 15y ago

I don't know if this is a troll post, but I'll humor it anyway. > The first is that it is insecure. As seen by the constant incidents of stolen and lost bitcoin's. If this is the standard by which you deem a currency insecure, you may want to be more specific. Physical goods are also susceptible to theft. > Physical currency is much more secure than a string of bits sitting on a hard drive This isn't really substantiated by anything, and I implore you to read about paper wallets. But you're also ignoring another useful characteristic of bitcoin: coins cannot be counterfeited, unlike any other currency. They are crytographically ensured. The security of your funds is not inherently endangered by the network by any means. I can accept bitcoin donations anonymously and there is no way they can be targeted without additional context. With physical transactions, there is always location. > The second is that it's much less convenient than cash. Cash is much less convenient than digital transactions. Have you heard of a credit card? Cash is only useful for anonymity. > The third is that the distribution system is set up as ponzi scheme where early adopters reap enormous amounts of wealth if they recruit more bitcoin users(which is why the bitcoin astroturfing is so persistent), people generally don't like participating in ponzi schemes. The currency incentivizes its own operation, yes, but this is not even close to a ponzi scheme -- you should look that term up. The technology does not distinguish early adopters from other participants.

politician 15y ago
You'll admit, though, that a bitcoin lost is lost forever, and that at some point the rate of lost bitcoins will exceed the rate of newly minted bitcoins. Even if it attains 100% adoption, the current system will simply dissipate. In that sense, if not insecure, it certainly isn't resilient.
- stuhood 15y ago
  The current encoding of bitcoin on the wire allows for division to 8 decimal places, but there is discussion around improving the encoding sooner, rather than later. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Divisibility_extension https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Divisibility_extension
- stevenwagner 15y ago
  There is no requirement for any number of coins to be in the system. The amounts are infinitely divisible. You could start the economy with 1 bitcoin, and break it into 7 billion fractions for everyone to share..and if all those are lost, you could do the same with the last 1 bitcoin again.
  - politician 15y ago
    > There is no requirement for any number of coins to be in the system. The math works out such that there are a precise number of bitcoins in the system, ~21M IIRC. > The amounts are infinitely divisible. 8 decimal places. Is that alot? Yes, but my point was that the current system is leaky. The rate of leakage may not be too bad now, but as the adoption rate goes up more careless nontechnical folks will get involved. Those people will fail to backup their wallets; that BTC will evaporate is an inevitable consequence of success.
    - Anderkent 15y ago
      >8 decimal places This is a client-specific value, and not a necessary property of the protocol. They can become arbitrarily divisible by simply modifying the client code. Of course new clients will not be compatible with old clients.