2 ms·

"...it is unfortunate (but entirely predictable) that the release of a not-yet-peer-reviewed paper generated so many sensationalistic headlines. Peer review wor

by cs702 13y ago

"...it is unfortunate (but entirely predictable) that the release of a not-yet-peer-reviewed paper generated so many sensationalistic headlines. Peer review works best when everybody involved is given time for conversation and debate without being contacted by reporters on deadline." Translation: next time, please send us the paper in advance and get it peer reviewed before you start talking to reporters. "I’m not going to write about the specific claims in the paper... However, it is good to note that in my initial review, I believe the paper’s assertion of a fundamental flaw is based on some over-simplified assumptions about how the bitcoin mining market works." Translation: the paper's claims are probably wrong.

sillysaurus2 13y ago
Why do they pander so much? It's hard to imagine pg ever writing something that tiptoes around like that, yet pg has been in dozens of situations requiring a public response to a perceived problem. He's never pandered, yet he's never suffered for it either. So is pg just a better writer than Gavin, or is this an academic tradition, or...? Just curious.
- celticninja 13y ago
  no need to be combatative, he actually wants to encourage researchers to undertake this sort of work, it may lead to improvments in the protocol and could save the developers some time too. If he tore into them then other researchers may feel less inclined to look at the network/protocol and undertake their own research.
- CompelTechnic 13y ago
  I would say that it is probably because a large portion of the mainstream media/ general population thinks bitcoin is for complete loonies. If Gavin's tone were confrontational, it would likely make people think he's getting defensive over his obviously ridiculous magic internet money. He has to err on the side of caution to avoid people making that assumption.
- jnbiche 13y ago
  They're trying hard not to discourage academic research into Bitcoin, or to scare off security researchers. They desperately want more security researchers. I actually think Gavin is handling this very well, and the response seems well-measured. That said, the way this whole paper has been released smacks of sensationalism. I'll take the Eyal at his word that he's concerned with Bitcoin's future, but failing to adhere to the standards of responsible disclosure and entitling a blog post "Bitcoin is Broken" really make me wonder about what they're trying to do, other than self-promote. Besides, this basic attack is something that has been discussed since 2010. There may be a few subtle differences in the paper, but based on my reading of the blog post, this is an attack that mining pools have even accused each other of doing a year or two ago. It's a potential problem, but definitely not a "Bitcoin is fundamentally broken" problem as the blog post claims.

by cs702 13y ago

sillysaurus2 13y ago

Why do they pander so much? It's hard to imagine pg ever writing something that tiptoes around like that, yet pg has been in dozens of situations requiring a public response to a perceived problem. He's never pandered, yet he's never suffered for it either. So is pg just a better writer than Gavin, or is this an academic tradition, or...? Just curious.

celticninja 13y ago
no need to be combatative, he actually wants to encourage researchers to undertake this sort of work, it may lead to improvments in the protocol and could save the developers some time too. If he tore into them then other researchers may feel less inclined to look at the network/protocol and undertake their own research.
CompelTechnic 13y ago
I would say that it is probably because a large portion of the mainstream media/ general population thinks bitcoin is for complete loonies. If Gavin's tone were confrontational, it would likely make people think he's getting defensive over his obviously ridiculous magic internet money. He has to err on the side of caution to avoid people making that assumption.
jnbiche 13y ago
They're trying hard not to discourage academic research into Bitcoin, or to scare off security researchers. They desperately want more security researchers. I actually think Gavin is handling this very well, and the response seems well-measured. That said, the way this whole paper has been released smacks of sensationalism. I'll take the Eyal at his word that he's concerned with Bitcoin's future, but failing to adhere to the standards of responsible disclosure and entitling a blog post "Bitcoin is Broken" really make me wonder about what they're trying to do, other than self-promote. Besides, this basic attack is something that has been discussed since 2010. There may be a few subtle differences in the paper, but based on my reading of the blog post, this is an attack that mining pools have even accused each other of doing a year or two ago. It's a potential problem, but definitely not a "Bitcoin is fundamentally broken" problem as the blog post claims.