4 ms·

That's always been true. Scrip has existed forever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrip Any private party can issue a form

by T-hawk 14y ago

That's always been true. Scrip has existed forever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrip Any private party can issue a form of currency. Its value is limited by trust in that private party to keep the supply stable and uncounterfeitable (not double spendable), and the expectation that merchants will accept it for goods and services. What Bitcoin introduces is a money supply with that question of trust removed, with enforcement by mathematical means. This only became possible recently of course, with the advent of enormous computational processing power and interconnectivity. The latter part of adoption by merchants seems to have very recently reached critical mass by way of networking effects. So Bitcoin could indeed be on the rise to become the world's monetary system. At this point, Bitcoin's biggest danger is not obscurity and oblivion or a free market crash, it's regulation or illegalization from governments that may be hostile to the existence and usage of a currency system they don't and can't control. The US and EU governments are the entities with possible power to kill Bitcoin, because they possess legalized force outside of the Bitcoin protocol and ecosystem.

betterunix 14y ago
"What Bitcoin introduces is a money supply with that question of trust removed, with enforcement by mathematical means" Except that there is no formal definition of the security for Bitcoin, so there is no meaningful "enforcement." Formal definitions of security for digital cash systems cannot be applied to Bitcoin because of the lack of a central authority. The security of Bitcoin is extremely vague, based on hand-waving arguments about computational power that are extremely difficult to analyze. Even if somehow we overlook that lack of rigor, "enforcement" is not accurate. There is a known, polynomial time, practical attack that allows Bitcoin money to be double-spent. That does not sound like "enforcement by mathematical means" to me, at least not if the "mathematics" you are referring to are cryptography, game theory, or related fields (and I am not sure what other mathematics would even be used to enforce rules).
- wnight 14y ago
  Double-spending bitcoins is hard, counterfeiting and general fraud are easy enough crooks can do them. Also, this is a ridiculous argument because all fist currencies are being manipulated now to avoid a default-inspired crash. Your cash is rotting in your pocket, and your investments aren't making back inflation let alone a profit.
  - betterunix 14y ago
    "Double-spending bitcoins is hard" 1. That is not well-defined. What does double-spending even mean for Bitcoin? Previous security definitions for digital cash define double spending in terms of a central bank that issues the money. 2. Even with the vague idea of what double-spending means for Bitcoin, your statement is false under the definition of "hard" that cryptographers typically use. There is a known polynomial-time algorithm for double spending Bitcoin that was described in the original Bitcoin whitepaper. That attack is practical and there are already concerns about one "mining pool" that has almost enough computational power to pull it off (and if they are willing to accept a small probability of failure, they already have that much power).
    - wnight 14y ago
      Yawn. Fraud is easy, no matter how you define it, stealing a few bitcoins on the other hand merely takes a finite amount of resources. You're essentially a troll. What you say is true but double spending a few coins (your maximum return is 2x) would take hundreds of thousands of dollars and a lot of luck. Duplicating paper money requires an inkjet printer with good registration and the common sense to separate the eruion constellations into separate layers. It's not rocket surgery, and once the source file is made it can be replicated at any copy shop. Its vanishingly unlikely you haven't accepted a counterfeit bill, and its vanishingly unlikely a bitcoin could be double-spent beyond seven blocks. Give it up. Bitcoins may not be a sound investment but they're far more secure than cash for both parties.

by T-hawk 14y ago

betterunix 14y ago

"What Bitcoin introduces is a money supply with that question of trust removed, with enforcement by mathematical means" Except that there is no formal definition of the security for Bitcoin, so there is no meaningful "enforcement." Formal definitions of security for digital cash systems cannot be applied to Bitcoin because of the lack of a central authority. The security of Bitcoin is extremely vague, based on hand-waving arguments about computational power that are extremely difficult to analyze. Even if somehow we overlook that lack of rigor, "enforcement" is not accurate. There is a known, polynomial time, practical attack that allows Bitcoin money to be double-spent. That does not sound like "enforcement by mathematical means" to me, at least not if the "mathematics" you are referring to are cryptography, game theory, or related fields (and I am not sure what other mathematics would even be used to enforce rules).

wnight 14y ago
Double-spending bitcoins is hard, counterfeiting and general fraud are easy enough crooks can do them. Also, this is a ridiculous argument because all fist currencies are being manipulated now to avoid a default-inspired crash. Your cash is rotting in your pocket, and your investments aren't making back inflation let alone a profit.
- betterunix 14y ago
  "Double-spending bitcoins is hard" 1. That is not well-defined. What does double-spending even mean for Bitcoin? Previous security definitions for digital cash define double spending in terms of a central bank that issues the money. 2. Even with the vague idea of what double-spending means for Bitcoin, your statement is false under the definition of "hard" that cryptographers typically use. There is a known polynomial-time algorithm for double spending Bitcoin that was described in the original Bitcoin whitepaper. That attack is practical and there are already concerns about one "mining pool" that has almost enough computational power to pull it off (and if they are willing to accept a small probability of failure, they already have that much power).
  - wnight 14y ago
    Yawn. Fraud is easy, no matter how you define it, stealing a few bitcoins on the other hand merely takes a finite amount of resources. You're essentially a troll. What you say is true but double spending a few coins (your maximum return is 2x) would take hundreds of thousands of dollars and a lot of luck. Duplicating paper money requires an inkjet printer with good registration and the common sense to separate the eruion constellations into separate layers. It's not rocket surgery, and once the source file is made it can be replicated at any copy shop. Its vanishingly unlikely you haven't accepted a counterfeit bill, and its vanishingly unlikely a bitcoin could be double-spent beyond seven blocks. Give it up. Bitcoins may not be a sound investment but they're far more secure than cash for both parties.