5 ms·

> Bitcoins security relies solely on it being one of few significant coins of its kind. So there's no technical security at all then, just the hope that hash

> Bitcoins security relies solely on it being one of few significant coins of its kind. So there's no technical security at all then, just the hope that hash power won't switch away to a new currency (which they have incentive to do - get in on the ground floor and cash out, as another poster said) It's all 'trust'. And a guaranteed cartel structure - the rich / powerful control 50% of the hashing power anyway. Pump and dump dreams indeed.

icebraining 13y ago
which they have incentive to do - get in on the ground floor and cash out So they have savings in Bitcoin, plus an income in the form of mining fees, and they have an incentive to destroy those savings and income because they can invest instead in a completely new coin, of which 99%+ fail without ever getting anywhere? That makes no sense.
- penguindev 13y ago
  Why is hash power required to have 'savings in bitcoin'? I can see mining fees. Regardless, you haven't refuted the 'no technical security' assertion. It's just a question of incentives, dealing, and collusion, which comes down to human nature. Not very appealing - I'll stick with hard assets, thanks.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    Why is hash power required to have 'savings in bitcoin'? Because without hash power the currency can be manipulated (e.g. double spent), which means that people won't accept Bitcoins, which means their savings would be worth their weight in Zimbabwe dollars. Everyone holding BTC has an incentive to keep the hash power high. Regardless, you haven't refuted the 'no technical security' assertion. It's just a question of incentives, dealing, and collusion, which comes down to human nature. Which is the same thing preventing another Executive Order 6102. You can't escape human nature.
    - penguindev 13y ago
      Wow. This really isn't making me very confident of bitcoin. You're saying that people (i.e. joe schmo) who have bitcoin deposits need to constantly make sure that the majority of computer hashing power in the world can't be used against them? So, like, the fastest computers in the world need to be focused solely on bitcoin mining otherwise the system isn't stable/secure? Jay-sus. Lets ignore 'dark pools' of compute power that are suddenly turned on during an attack (or even make a threat of an attack, and extort people into 'protection' money), or collusion between 'pools'... yeah, the double spending attack really is uh..dumb... You know, if a government had proposed this system (bitcoin), people would be all over it pointing out how weak it is. > You can't escape human nature. Total agreement there. Just get out of the herd's way. Edit: and right now I see the herd running into bitcoin. Edit 2: I read some smart people got around that executive order (at the time) by buying foreign currency that had already done the devaluation (timing is everything!). (Which lead to unwanted strengthening of those foreign currencies)
      - icebraining 13y ago
        You're saying that people (i.e. joe schmo) who have bitcoin deposits need to constantly make sure that the majority of computer hashing power in the world can't be used against them? It's not like it can be used against someone personally. It can't steal someone's coins. What the attacker can do is: - Revert their own transactions (I pay you 10BTC, then I revert that payment and I use the same BTC to pay someone else). This is what is called double-spending. (Essentially, it's something like a chargeback, which aren't supposed to exist in Bitcoin.) - Prevent the validations of some or all transactions, for as long as they control the blockchain. So, if they just do a temporary attack, it'd cause some troubles (as it has in the past already), but not necessarily catastrophic. You know, if a government had proposed this system (bitcoin), people would be all over it pointing out how weak it is. I'm sure they would, yet everyone uses Credit Cards despite the $190 billion of losses due to fraud that occur every year. Just get out of the herd's way. Edit: and right now I see the herd running into bitcoin. That's completely contradictory with your previous statement. If there's an herd, it has been towards buying gold. Bitcoin is a blip in the radar. HN is far from representative.
nly 13y ago
There's security... because there's no incentive for most to risk investing in a new currency, especially when it's a minefield. The structure of the mining pools is what you want watch if you want an indicator of how safe Bitcoin is though, the original grassroots appeal of mining on your own own CPU/GPU is gone, and now its all in the hands of commercial outfits with ASICs and enthusiasts in denial. It wouldn't surprise me if we had a Bitcoin Miners Council at some point in the future.

icebraining 13y ago

which they have incentive to do - get in on the ground floor and cash out So they have savings in Bitcoin, plus an income in the form of mining fees, and they have an incentive to destroy those savings and income because they can invest instead in a completely new coin, of which 99%+ fail without ever getting anywhere? That makes no sense.

penguindev 13y ago
Why is hash power required to have 'savings in bitcoin'? I can see mining fees. Regardless, you haven't refuted the 'no technical security' assertion. It's just a question of incentives, dealing, and collusion, which comes down to human nature. Not very appealing - I'll stick with hard assets, thanks.
- icebraining 13y ago
  Why is hash power required to have 'savings in bitcoin'? Because without hash power the currency can be manipulated (e.g. double spent), which means that people won't accept Bitcoins, which means their savings would be worth their weight in Zimbabwe dollars. Everyone holding BTC has an incentive to keep the hash power high. Regardless, you haven't refuted the 'no technical security' assertion. It's just a question of incentives, dealing, and collusion, which comes down to human nature. Which is the same thing preventing another Executive Order 6102. You can't escape human nature.
  - penguindev 13y ago
    Wow. This really isn't making me very confident of bitcoin. You're saying that people (i.e. joe schmo) who have bitcoin deposits need to constantly make sure that the majority of computer hashing power in the world can't be used against them? So, like, the fastest computers in the world need to be focused solely on bitcoin mining otherwise the system isn't stable/secure? Jay-sus. Lets ignore 'dark pools' of compute power that are suddenly turned on during an attack (or even make a threat of an attack, and extort people into 'protection' money), or collusion between 'pools'... yeah, the double spending attack really is uh..dumb... You know, if a government had proposed this system (bitcoin), people would be all over it pointing out how weak it is. > You can't escape human nature. Total agreement there. Just get out of the herd's way. Edit: and right now I see the herd running into bitcoin. Edit 2: I read some smart people got around that executive order (at the time) by buying foreign currency that had already done the devaluation (timing is everything!). (Which lead to unwanted strengthening of those foreign currencies)
    - icebraining 13y ago
      You're saying that people (i.e. joe schmo) who have bitcoin deposits need to constantly make sure that the majority of computer hashing power in the world can't be used against them? It's not like it can be used against someone personally. It can't steal someone's coins. What the attacker can do is: - Revert their own transactions (I pay you 10BTC, then I revert that payment and I use the same BTC to pay someone else). This is what is called double-spending. (Essentially, it's something like a chargeback, which aren't supposed to exist in Bitcoin.) - Prevent the validations of some or all transactions, for as long as they control the blockchain. So, if they just do a temporary attack, it'd cause some troubles (as it has in the past already), but not necessarily catastrophic. You know, if a government had proposed this system (bitcoin), people would be all over it pointing out how weak it is. I'm sure they would, yet everyone uses Credit Cards despite the $190 billion of losses due to fraud that occur every year. Just get out of the herd's way. Edit: and right now I see the herd running into bitcoin. That's completely contradictory with your previous statement. If there's an herd, it has been towards buying gold. Bitcoin is a blip in the radar. HN is far from representative.

nly 13y ago

There's security... because there's no incentive for most to risk investing in a new currency, especially when it's a minefield. The structure of the mining pools is what you want watch if you want an indicator of how safe Bitcoin is though, the original grassroots appeal of mining on your own own CPU/GPU is gone, and now its all in the hands of commercial outfits with ASICs and enthusiasts in denial. It wouldn't surprise me if we had a Bitcoin Miners Council at some point in the future.