3 ms·

Your arrogant tone doesn't really jive with the lack of substance in your comment. Since you're apparently a professional cryptographer who would have designed

by moe 14y ago

Your arrogant tone doesn't really jive with the lack of substance in your comment. Since you're apparently a professional cryptographer who would have designed a flawless Bitcoin right off the bat; Why don't you share some of your wisdom and point out a few of the amateur problems and how you would solve them? I'm sure the Bitcoin community would be grateful for your input.

betterunix 14y ago
Is it really that arrogant to point out that the Bitcoin community has basically ignored the vast body of published, publicly available research on digital cash? Even if the point of Bitcoin is to go in a separate direction and have no central authorities of any kind, that previous work is highly relevant. There is no particular need for me to design a better digital cash system; such systems have already been designed. It is not even clear that digital cash without a central authority can be provably secure, since nobody has proposed a security definition for digital cash that does not involve some currency issuing authority (no, Bitcoin's definition does not count -- it does not rule out feasible attacks). Personally, I have no real problem with having a "bank" that issues currency, as long as the bank cannot frame people for double spending or other cheating (which is the kind of protection that was described by Chaum and other researchers in the 90s). So really, the ball is in the Bitcoin community's court. The research results on digital cash and secure multiparty computation is all publicly available and mostly available at no cost. Let the Bitcoin community develop a definition of security for digital cash without any "bank" if that is their goal; all that I am saying is that the definition must rule out feasible attacks if we are expected to take it seriously.
- gbog 14y ago
  Sorry but you really look like a scholar saying platypus don't exist because they can't exist. Or Black Swans...
- zanny 14y ago
  Money speaks a lot louder than PHD's who haven't made a competitive currency. Bitcoin is booming - nothing else is even on the radar. Bitcoin doesn't have to play ball with anyone if they are, by magnitudes, the largest digital currency in use. So far, it works. If BTC stops working, you can expect everyone to jump ship and hopefully a more secure alternative will be developed with lessons learned from the BTC ride. But for now, unless you can produce an attack that can lose people money in the bitcoin ecosystem, ranting about theoretical cryptosecurity in digital currencies and how BTC only being as secure as the majority of the swarm allows doesn't make anyone hesitant to invest in bitcoin. > I have no real problem with having a "bank" that issues currency The problem with banks is that they can always act in their own self-interest to fuck over the holders of their currency, and by having the only right to "counterfeit" their currency they have abnormal economic power in the economy their currency drives. It is the reason the US Federal Reserve is so corrupt right now, can wildly print US dollars to their own discretion, which is effectively stealing from anyone holding dollars by devaluing the currency as a whole, and they can do it at their own whims.

by moe 14y ago

betterunix 14y ago

Is it really that arrogant to point out that the Bitcoin community has basically ignored the vast body of published, publicly available research on digital cash? Even if the point of Bitcoin is to go in a separate direction and have no central authorities of any kind, that previous work is highly relevant. There is no particular need for me to design a better digital cash system; such systems have already been designed. It is not even clear that digital cash without a central authority can be provably secure, since nobody has proposed a security definition for digital cash that does not involve some currency issuing authority (no, Bitcoin's definition does not count -- it does not rule out feasible attacks). Personally, I have no real problem with having a "bank" that issues currency, as long as the bank cannot frame people for double spending or other cheating (which is the kind of protection that was described by Chaum and other researchers in the 90s). So really, the ball is in the Bitcoin community's court. The research results on digital cash and secure multiparty computation is all publicly available and mostly available at no cost. Let the Bitcoin community develop a definition of security for digital cash without any "bank" if that is their goal; all that I am saying is that the definition must rule out feasible attacks if we are expected to take it seriously.

gbog 14y ago
Sorry but you really look like a scholar saying platypus don't exist because they can't exist. Or Black Swans...
zanny 14y ago
Money speaks a lot louder than PHD's who haven't made a competitive currency. Bitcoin is booming - nothing else is even on the radar. Bitcoin doesn't have to play ball with anyone if they are, by magnitudes, the largest digital currency in use. So far, it works. If BTC stops working, you can expect everyone to jump ship and hopefully a more secure alternative will be developed with lessons learned from the BTC ride. But for now, unless you can produce an attack that can lose people money in the bitcoin ecosystem, ranting about theoretical cryptosecurity in digital currencies and how BTC only being as secure as the majority of the swarm allows doesn't make anyone hesitant to invest in bitcoin. > I have no real problem with having a "bank" that issues currency The problem with banks is that they can always act in their own self-interest to fuck over the holders of their currency, and by having the only right to "counterfeit" their currency they have abnormal economic power in the economy their currency drives. It is the reason the US Federal Reserve is so corrupt right now, can wildly print US dollars to their own discretion, which is effectively stealing from anyone holding dollars by devaluing the currency as a whole, and they can do it at their own whims.