6 ms·

Things You Need To Know About Bitcoins

27 points by jakerocheleau 14y ago

betterunix 14y ago
My own thoughts about Bitcoin aside, this article is utterly misinformed: "Satoshi Nakamoto was so talented that he even solved the problem of double spending of digital currency in his system." That was solved by David Chaum over a decade before Bitcoin. "You will be anonymous in the system" That was shown to be untrue long ago. Bitcoin does not exist in a vacuum and Bitcoin users can be tracked and associated with other information. "Security experts and digital freedom enthusiasts praise Bitcoin" I am working on a PhD with a focus on cryptography and secure multiparty computation, and I have nothing but bad things to say about Bitcoin. It has numerous technical shortcomings that other digital cash systems do not have.
- lowglow 14y ago
  What would you suggest as a suitable alternative to Bitcoin?
  - gesman 14y ago
    If he has "nothing but bad things to say about bitcoin" - he's not the right person to ask for any answers related to digital currency and it's alternatives.
  - betterunix 14y ago
    I would suggest a revival of DigiCash, Chaum's original attempt at deploying a digital cash infrastructure in the 90s. Digital cash is not some anarchist fantasy, it is a way to secure electronic payments and to enable electronic payments to replace physical cash (in ways that are currently impossible). A digital cash system that uses a central currency issuing party can still solve the problems that digital cash is supposed to solve: privacy-preserving payments, protections against fraud, secure offline payments, etc. Bitcoin does not even solve that last one: there are no secure offline payments with Bitcoin, nor can there be, and we knew there could not be such payments before Bitcoin was deployed: https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1754992 https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1754992 In a sense, Bitcoin has ruined digital cash, by stealing the attention of people who might have been early adopters of a DigiCash revival. Now everyone thinks the digital cash is Bitcoin, and so any other system would be forced to either compete with Bitcoin or to reassure everyone that digital cash is possible after Bitcoin's potential (i.e. near certain) failure.
- wereHamster 14y ago
  > It has numerous technical shortcomings that other digital cash systems do not have. Would you care to elaborate or point to posts/articles which explain those shortcomings?
  - betterunix 14y ago
    The biggest issue, in my view, is that you cannot have both scalability and secure offline transactions in a system like Bitcoin -- specifically, in any system that lacks currency issuing authorities. Chaum showed this long before there was a Bitcoin (sorry if this is not an article you can easily find for free): https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1754992 https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1754992 In layman's terms, the result is this: every time you make a secure digital cash transfer, the amount of information needed in future transfers of the money increases. The increase is, in the best case, linear in the number of offline transactions. Traditionally, that is solved by having a "bank" that issues the initial information, and which will re-issue currency to reset its size. In the case of Bitcoin, there is no such authority, meaning that either you'll hit this scalability problem or you cannot have secure offline payments. In Bitcoin's case, solutions have been given for the scalability problem; it is safe to conclude that offline payments are impossible. Lacking offline transactions is a big deal in practice. It means that we cannot meet anywhere "off the grid" and expect to be able to transfer money. It means that gas pumps need reliable Internet connections. It means that hot dog stands need Internet service. In other words, it means that Bitcoin cannot replace paper money -- whereas Chaumiam-style systems could, or at least have a stronger case for being able to. There is also reason to doubt Bitcoin's security model. See, for example, this work on analyzing the publicly available information in Bitcoin to de-anonymize its users: http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.4524 http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.4524 Really, if I were to be as conservative about security as possible, I would say that the only security Bitcoin provides is protection against double-spending in online transactions; I would not rely on anonymity, and I would not even think about offline payments. Considering how much work was done in the early 90s on digital cash systems that not only protect against double spending, but which also allow secure offline transactions and which ensure the anonymity of users, I don't think it is unfair to say that Bitcoin has technical weaknesses compared to other systems.
- Nursie 14y ago
  It's a bit pompous isn't it? "But what he created was definitely the fantasy of every tech guy in the world." No, not really. Some of us have other dreams than creating a crypto-currency with a fixed supply, or a crypto currency at all. Also hasn't the reward halved? This article still says 50 BTC per block.
- jordigh 14y ago
  > I am working on a PhD with a focus on cryptography and secure > multiparty computation, and I have nothing but bad things to say > about Bitcoin. So where are you saying them? Where's your blog post?
- neya 14y ago
  >It has numerous technical shortcomings that other digital cash systems do not have. Care to tell us what it is, or it doesn't exist. Also, you don't sound someone who is doing his PhD, you sound more like someone from some government agency upset about a parallel currency system that has the potential to stop its users from being unknowingly abused of their personal information. In my opinion, If Bitcoins are implemented on a massive scale, then there is a heavy chance that the rich will no longer become richer and the poor will no longer become poorer. If and only if implemented properly, on a massive scale. Right now, we can only hope.
  - JumpCrisscross 14y ago
    A fixed supply currency in a growing economy, i.e. one where the quantity of "stuff" is increasing, is inherently deflationary - the ratio of "stuff", or capital, to money goes up since the denominator is fixed. This accrues capital to those who hold money without them having to do anything. William Jennings Bryant's "Cross of Gold" speech pilloried the gold standard precisely because it preserves the wealth structure through time. Fiat money, on the other hand, promotes the churn of money and thus tends to de-stabilise the hierarchy of wealth over time. Switching to a fixed supply currency, e.g. gold or Bitcoin, means those who hold wealth would become wealthier by virtue of holding wealth.
  - betterunix 14y ago
    "Bitcoins are implemented on a massive scale, then there is a heavy chance that the rich will no longer become richer and the poor will no longer become poorer" This is how we know you are not being realistic. Bitcoin is not pixie dust. Let's put it this way: rich people could just buy all the Bitcoin currency units out there with their other assets, and then you would see them become even wealthier just by holding on to those units as deflationary trends kick in, and that is assuming that we lived in a universe where currencies without any legal structure around them can really become big. Do you really think people are going to forget about US Dollars or Euros or Pounds Sterling overnight? People still need to pay taxes, they still have to use courts to settle disputes, and so forth -- and poor people are going to be in much greater need of the currencies used for those things than rich people, and will be much more willing to exchange Bitcoins for those currencies.
- wcoenen 14y ago
  >>"Satoshi Nakamoto was so talented that he even solved the problem of double spending of digital currency in his system." >That was solved by David Chaum over a decade before Bitcoin. To be exact, David Chaum figured out a system that prevents double spending yet doesn't have traceable transactions.[1] But it still required a central authority that keeps the ledger and which can block your account. The innovation of Bitcoin is to prevent double spending without having any centralization at all. [1] http://www.hit.bme.hu/~buttyan/courses/BMEVIHIM219/2009/Chaum.BlindSigForPayment.1982.PDF http://www.hit.bme.hu/~buttyan/courses/BMEVIHIM219/2009/Chau...
  - betterunix 14y ago
    Chaum developed multiple systems, and was working towards a cryptographic system that could replace paper money. The earliest systems required everyone to have an account; later systems developed by Chaum and other researchers supported offline transactions and allowed units of currency to be transferred between multiple parties without involving the bank. What all these systems had in common is that the bank issued the currency units, and for systems that supported offline transactions, potentially renewed those units. Some systems that support offline transactions allow the bank to "blacklist" people who try to double spend the currency; in theory, a corrupt bank might try to blacklist someone who was behaving honestly, but the users of the system could demand the proof of double spending before they accept such a blacklist. Bitcoin's innovation was allowing currency to be issued without a central authority and still preserving the security against double spending. That comes at a high cost: you lose secure offline transactions or you incur a scalability problem (for Bitcoin, it is the former: no offline transactions). Chaum proved that this is the case for any digital cash system, regardless of central authorities (and in fact, central authorities are a handy way to deal with the issue: you choose the scalability hit and then allow the central authority to exchange used currency units for fresh ones): https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1754992 https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1754992
    - jerguismi 14y ago
      > Chaum developed multiple systems, and was working towards a cryptographic system that could replace paper money. Sounds cool, where can I download the source code and test this system?
- theorique 14y ago
  I am working on a PhD with a focus on cryptography and secure multiparty computation, and I have nothing but bad things to say about Bitcoin. It has numerous technical shortcomings that other digital cash systems do not have. Very 'Internet Tough Guy'. I'm extremely impressed by your insights. Do you have any links to support your assertions?
Kiro 14y ago
How does the public listing to prevent double spending work? Doesn't that require a central server or something?
- nwh 14y ago
  Every node in the network has the full blockchain (public listing), if a double spend is attempted then it won't be accepted by the majority of the nodes, and consequently won't be included in the next block in the chain. Double spending is only an issue if you don't wait for the transaction to be "confirmed" by its inclusion in a block. Some services don't do this, and that's where you begin to have problems. You may end up with someone having a service they didn't actually pay for, for example.
stcredzero 14y ago
What would a dollar cost averaging strategy have yielded from bitcoin investment over the past year?
- cjg 14y ago
  It would depend on how frequently you invested and the offset. For example, monthly on the 23rd of the month would give you one return, whereas weekly on a Tuesday would give you another. But given that 1 BTC is ~ 20 USD at the moment and that over much of the last year it has been varied between roughly 6 USD and 14 USD, you would have roughly doubled your money. The question is really what the future holds. Will adoption grow dramatically (in which case BTC will give an amazing return) or is it a white elephant. Extremely high risk investment: potential high returns, high risk of total loss. Mind you, some high risks investments are needed in a well balanced portfolio.
pmelendez 14y ago
What I don't get about Bitcoin is, since it is a distributed p2p currency system, Who is "generating" the digital bill? In normal currency, a central bank would generate notes that are backed by an equivalent valuable good (ex. Gold, Jewels, etc). I am aware that's not true in modern systems because a central bank can emit more inorganic notes, but that has a direct impact in the inner value of the currency. In this system, I can't see who is in charge of emitting the digital "note". So, how is exchange rate calculated then? Bitcoin mining is another blur concept. Does anybody know how this actually works? Edit: Fixing some typos
- lucb1e 14y ago
  A bill is only worth as much as you decide it's worth. We both have to agree on a method of payment in order to fairly exchange goods. Bitcoin is a method of payment. When someone sends you Bitcoins, your bitcoin software will decide whether they are fake or not. Since the entire transaction history is public, it can find all transactions to and from the person who is sending you coins, and see if they indeed have enough to pay you. The problem is that, at first, nobody had coins. To get them into circulation a system was built: For finding a "proof of work" (just assume for now that it's something that takes a computer a certain amount of work to find), the program agrees that you earned an X amount of coins. It used to be 50 coins per proof of work, right now it's 25. It will get down to zero eventually and there will be 21 million coins in circulation. Never more. A proof of work is easy to validate. It's like a big number is given, and you have to find its prime factors. It takes forever to search all possibilities, but once they're found, you can easily multiply them to check the validity. So when you are sent coins, your Bitcoin program (called the bitcoin client) will check the transaction history for who found proof of works, how much they gained from it, and who sent coins to who. After this you know how much money someone has, and whether he can pay you. It's up to your bitcoin client to use the same rules as everyone. You can decide that proof of works are worth much more or much less than everyone else agrees upon, but it will only prevent you from using the network. Most, ifnot all, other clients will reject your version of the truth. I hope this cleared things up. It probably rose other questions, but most are asked before. Just google for it ;) I also wrote a blogpost about Bitcoin, if you are interested: http://lucb1e.com/?p=post&id=99 http://lucb1e.com/?p=post&id=99
markkat 14y ago
One thing that gives me confidence in the future of BTC is the constant controversy surrounding it.
dyoung89 14y ago
Bitcoin truly fascinates me, I love its potential, if it is widely adopted how long before you can spend bitcoins via a 'bank card' or probably more impressive if a bank adopts it.
- gesman 14y ago
  Bitcoin is very rebellious currency. Neither governments, nor traditional banks will ever support it as bitcoin means no centralized control. Although there are many "new breed" entities, like bitcoin exchanges and bitcoin ecommerce solutions that quickly adopting bitcoin.
  - cjg 14y ago
    I can image PayPal or some other payment services provider deciding to integrate it as a payment method.
    - gesman 14y ago
      Paypal hates bitcoin and routinely suspends user accounts that are suspected in trading bitcoins. Remember: bitcoin adoption means death to entities that likes to tightly control monetary instruments and transactions. There is lots of resistance for bitcoin
TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
> SAmsung TOSHIba NAKAmichi MOTOrola Samsung isn't Japanese. And what the hell is Nakamichi? But Satoshi is a common Japanese given name.
- sp332 14y ago
  I agree with you, but for the curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakamichi#Notable_Nakamichi_products_and_advances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakamichi#Notable_Nakamichi_pr...
gesman 14y ago
Here's another helpful bit: Bitcoin forum: https://bitcointalk.org/ https://bitcointalk.org/
- Nursie 14y ago
  Yes! Go read bitcoin forum and be truly terrified at the people who have thrown their weight behind the various bitcoin businesses out there!
lucb1e 14y ago
Additionally to point #10, how do you spend a Bitcoin: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Trade https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Trade

27 points by jakerocheleau 14y ago

My own thoughts about Bitcoin aside, this article is utterly misinformed: "Satoshi Nakamoto was so talented that he even solved the problem of double spending of digital currency in his system." That was solved by David Chaum over a decade before Bitcoin. "You will be anonymous in the system" That was shown to be untrue long ago. Bitcoin does not exist in a vacuum and Bitcoin users can be tracked and associated with other information. "Security experts and digital freedom enthusiasts praise Bitcoin" I am working on a PhD with a focus on cryptography and secure multiparty computation, and I have nothing but bad things to say about Bitcoin. It has numerous technical shortcomings that other digital cash systems do not have.

lowglow 14y ago
What would you suggest as a suitable alternative to Bitcoin?
- gesman 14y ago
  If he has "nothing but bad things to say about bitcoin" - he's not the right person to ask for any answers related to digital currency and it's alternatives.
- betterunix 14y ago
  I would suggest a revival of DigiCash, Chaum's original attempt at deploying a digital cash infrastructure in the 90s. Digital cash is not some anarchist fantasy, it is a way to secure electronic payments and to enable electronic payments to replace physical cash (in ways that are currently impossible). A digital cash system that uses a central currency issuing party can still solve the problems that digital cash is supposed to solve: privacy-preserving payments, protections against fraud, secure offline payments, etc. Bitcoin does not even solve that last one: there are no secure offline payments with Bitcoin, nor can there be, and we knew there could not be such payments before Bitcoin was deployed: https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1754992 https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1754992 In a sense, Bitcoin has ruined digital cash, by stealing the attention of people who might have been early adopters of a DigiCash revival. Now everyone thinks the digital cash is Bitcoin, and so any other system would be forced to either compete with Bitcoin or to reassure everyone that digital cash is possible after Bitcoin's potential (i.e. near certain) failure.
wereHamster 14y ago
> It has numerous technical shortcomings that other digital cash systems do not have. Would you care to elaborate or point to posts/articles which explain those shortcomings?
- betterunix 14y ago
  The biggest issue, in my view, is that you cannot have both scalability and secure offline transactions in a system like Bitcoin -- specifically, in any system that lacks currency issuing authorities. Chaum showed this long before there was a Bitcoin (sorry if this is not an article you can easily find for free): https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1754992 https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1754992 In layman's terms, the result is this: every time you make a secure digital cash transfer, the amount of information needed in future transfers of the money increases. The increase is, in the best case, linear in the number of offline transactions. Traditionally, that is solved by having a "bank" that issues the initial information, and which will re-issue currency to reset its size. In the case of Bitcoin, there is no such authority, meaning that either you'll hit this scalability problem or you cannot have secure offline payments. In Bitcoin's case, solutions have been given for the scalability problem; it is safe to conclude that offline payments are impossible. Lacking offline transactions is a big deal in practice. It means that we cannot meet anywhere "off the grid" and expect to be able to transfer money. It means that gas pumps need reliable Internet connections. It means that hot dog stands need Internet service. In other words, it means that Bitcoin cannot replace paper money -- whereas Chaumiam-style systems could, or at least have a stronger case for being able to. There is also reason to doubt Bitcoin's security model. See, for example, this work on analyzing the publicly available information in Bitcoin to de-anonymize its users: http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.4524 http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.4524 Really, if I were to be as conservative about security as possible, I would say that the only security Bitcoin provides is protection against double-spending in online transactions; I would not rely on anonymity, and I would not even think about offline payments. Considering how much work was done in the early 90s on digital cash systems that not only protect against double spending, but which also allow secure offline transactions and which ensure the anonymity of users, I don't think it is unfair to say that Bitcoin has technical weaknesses compared to other systems.
Nursie 14y ago
It's a bit pompous isn't it? "But what he created was definitely the fantasy of every tech guy in the world." No, not really. Some of us have other dreams than creating a crypto-currency with a fixed supply, or a crypto currency at all. Also hasn't the reward halved? This article still says 50 BTC per block.
jordigh 14y ago
> I am working on a PhD with a focus on cryptography and secure > multiparty computation, and I have nothing but bad things to say > about Bitcoin. So where are you saying them? Where's your blog post?
neya 14y ago
>It has numerous technical shortcomings that other digital cash systems do not have. Care to tell us what it is, or it doesn't exist. Also, you don't sound someone who is doing his PhD, you sound more like someone from some government agency upset about a parallel currency system that has the potential to stop its users from being unknowingly abused of their personal information. In my opinion, If Bitcoins are implemented on a massive scale, then there is a heavy chance that the rich will no longer become richer and the poor will no longer become poorer. If and only if implemented properly, on a massive scale. Right now, we can only hope.
- JumpCrisscross 14y ago
  A fixed supply currency in a growing economy, i.e. one where the quantity of "stuff" is increasing, is inherently deflationary - the ratio of "stuff", or capital, to money goes up since the denominator is fixed. This accrues capital to those who hold money without them having to do anything. William Jennings Bryant's "Cross of Gold" speech pilloried the gold standard precisely because it preserves the wealth structure through time. Fiat money, on the other hand, promotes the churn of money and thus tends to de-stabilise the hierarchy of wealth over time. Switching to a fixed supply currency, e.g. gold or Bitcoin, means those who hold wealth would become wealthier by virtue of holding wealth.
- betterunix 14y ago
  "Bitcoins are implemented on a massive scale, then there is a heavy chance that the rich will no longer become richer and the poor will no longer become poorer" This is how we know you are not being realistic. Bitcoin is not pixie dust. Let's put it this way: rich people could just buy all the Bitcoin currency units out there with their other assets, and then you would see them become even wealthier just by holding on to those units as deflationary trends kick in, and that is assuming that we lived in a universe where currencies without any legal structure around them can really become big. Do you really think people are going to forget about US Dollars or Euros or Pounds Sterling overnight? People still need to pay taxes, they still have to use courts to settle disputes, and so forth -- and poor people are going to be in much greater need of the currencies used for those things than rich people, and will be much more willing to exchange Bitcoins for those currencies.
wcoenen 14y ago
>>"Satoshi Nakamoto was so talented that he even solved the problem of double spending of digital currency in his system." >That was solved by David Chaum over a decade before Bitcoin. To be exact, David Chaum figured out a system that prevents double spending yet doesn't have traceable transactions.[1] But it still required a central authority that keeps the ledger and which can block your account. The innovation of Bitcoin is to prevent double spending without having any centralization at all. [1] http://www.hit.bme.hu/~buttyan/courses/BMEVIHIM219/2009/Chaum.BlindSigForPayment.1982.PDF http://www.hit.bme.hu/~buttyan/courses/BMEVIHIM219/2009/Chau...
- betterunix 14y ago
  Chaum developed multiple systems, and was working towards a cryptographic system that could replace paper money. The earliest systems required everyone to have an account; later systems developed by Chaum and other researchers supported offline transactions and allowed units of currency to be transferred between multiple parties without involving the bank. What all these systems had in common is that the bank issued the currency units, and for systems that supported offline transactions, potentially renewed those units. Some systems that support offline transactions allow the bank to "blacklist" people who try to double spend the currency; in theory, a corrupt bank might try to blacklist someone who was behaving honestly, but the users of the system could demand the proof of double spending before they accept such a blacklist. Bitcoin's innovation was allowing currency to be issued without a central authority and still preserving the security against double spending. That comes at a high cost: you lose secure offline transactions or you incur a scalability problem (for Bitcoin, it is the former: no offline transactions). Chaum proved that this is the case for any digital cash system, regardless of central authorities (and in fact, central authorities are a handy way to deal with the issue: you choose the scalability hit and then allow the central authority to exchange used currency units for fresh ones): https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1754992 https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1754992
  - jerguismi 14y ago
    > Chaum developed multiple systems, and was working towards a cryptographic system that could replace paper money. Sounds cool, where can I download the source code and test this system?
theorique 14y ago
I am working on a PhD with a focus on cryptography and secure multiparty computation, and I have nothing but bad things to say about Bitcoin. It has numerous technical shortcomings that other digital cash systems do not have. Very 'Internet Tough Guy'. I'm extremely impressed by your insights. Do you have any links to support your assertions?

Kiro 14y ago

How does the public listing to prevent double spending work? Doesn't that require a central server or something?

nwh 14y ago
Every node in the network has the full blockchain (public listing), if a double spend is attempted then it won't be accepted by the majority of the nodes, and consequently won't be included in the next block in the chain. Double spending is only an issue if you don't wait for the transaction to be "confirmed" by its inclusion in a block. Some services don't do this, and that's where you begin to have problems. You may end up with someone having a service they didn't actually pay for, for example.

stcredzero 14y ago

What would a dollar cost averaging strategy have yielded from bitcoin investment over the past year?

cjg 14y ago
It would depend on how frequently you invested and the offset. For example, monthly on the 23rd of the month would give you one return, whereas weekly on a Tuesday would give you another. But given that 1 BTC is ~ 20 USD at the moment and that over much of the last year it has been varied between roughly 6 USD and 14 USD, you would have roughly doubled your money. The question is really what the future holds. Will adoption grow dramatically (in which case BTC will give an amazing return) or is it a white elephant. Extremely high risk investment: potential high returns, high risk of total loss. Mind you, some high risks investments are needed in a well balanced portfolio.

pmelendez 14y ago

What I don't get about Bitcoin is, since it is a distributed p2p currency system, Who is "generating" the digital bill? In normal currency, a central bank would generate notes that are backed by an equivalent valuable good (ex. Gold, Jewels, etc). I am aware that's not true in modern systems because a central bank can emit more inorganic notes, but that has a direct impact in the inner value of the currency. In this system, I can't see who is in charge of emitting the digital "note". So, how is exchange rate calculated then? Bitcoin mining is another blur concept. Does anybody know how this actually works? Edit: Fixing some typos

lucb1e 14y ago
A bill is only worth as much as you decide it's worth. We both have to agree on a method of payment in order to fairly exchange goods. Bitcoin is a method of payment. When someone sends you Bitcoins, your bitcoin software will decide whether they are fake or not. Since the entire transaction history is public, it can find all transactions to and from the person who is sending you coins, and see if they indeed have enough to pay you. The problem is that, at first, nobody had coins. To get them into circulation a system was built: For finding a "proof of work" (just assume for now that it's something that takes a computer a certain amount of work to find), the program agrees that you earned an X amount of coins. It used to be 50 coins per proof of work, right now it's 25. It will get down to zero eventually and there will be 21 million coins in circulation. Never more. A proof of work is easy to validate. It's like a big number is given, and you have to find its prime factors. It takes forever to search all possibilities, but once they're found, you can easily multiply them to check the validity. So when you are sent coins, your Bitcoin program (called the bitcoin client) will check the transaction history for who found proof of works, how much they gained from it, and who sent coins to who. After this you know how much money someone has, and whether he can pay you. It's up to your bitcoin client to use the same rules as everyone. You can decide that proof of works are worth much more or much less than everyone else agrees upon, but it will only prevent you from using the network. Most, ifnot all, other clients will reject your version of the truth. I hope this cleared things up. It probably rose other questions, but most are asked before. Just google for it ;) I also wrote a blogpost about Bitcoin, if you are interested: http://lucb1e.com/?p=post&id=99 http://lucb1e.com/?p=post&id=99

markkat 14y ago

One thing that gives me confidence in the future of BTC is the constant controversy surrounding it.

dyoung89 14y ago

Bitcoin truly fascinates me, I love its potential, if it is widely adopted how long before you can spend bitcoins via a 'bank card' or probably more impressive if a bank adopts it.

gesman 14y ago
Bitcoin is very rebellious currency. Neither governments, nor traditional banks will ever support it as bitcoin means no centralized control. Although there are many "new breed" entities, like bitcoin exchanges and bitcoin ecommerce solutions that quickly adopting bitcoin.
- cjg 14y ago
  I can image PayPal or some other payment services provider deciding to integrate it as a payment method.
  - gesman 14y ago
    Paypal hates bitcoin and routinely suspends user accounts that are suspected in trading bitcoins. Remember: bitcoin adoption means death to entities that likes to tightly control monetary instruments and transactions. There is lots of resistance for bitcoin

TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago

> SAmsung TOSHIba NAKAmichi MOTOrola Samsung isn't Japanese. And what the hell is Nakamichi? But Satoshi is a common Japanese given name.

sp332 14y ago
I agree with you, but for the curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakamichi#Notable_Nakamichi_products_and_advances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakamichi#Notable_Nakamichi_pr...

gesman 14y ago

Here's another helpful bit: Bitcoin forum: https://bitcointalk.org/ https://bitcointalk.org/

Nursie 14y ago
Yes! Go read bitcoin forum and be truly terrified at the people who have thrown their weight behind the various bitcoin businesses out there!

lucb1e 14y ago

Additionally to point #10, how do you spend a Bitcoin: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Trade https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Trade