6 ms·

> I've got an 8k word essay ... I hope it won't be a Gish gallop. It indicates that there probably is not one single big case against Bitcoin but many small ca

by VMG 12y ago

> I've got an 8k word essay ... I hope it won't be a Gish gallop. It indicates that there probably is not one single big case against Bitcoin but many small cases. There is an interesting essay about that here: http://www.gwern.net/Bitcoin%20is%20Worse%20is%20Better http://www.gwern.net/Bitcoin%20is%20Worse%20is%20Better

w1ntermute 12y ago
For those who don't know what a Gish Gallop is: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
napoleond 12y ago
I wish I could upvote this twice. I spent a long time trying to write a similar comment and eventually deleted it; yours is better. Of course Bitcoin isn't perfect and it's entirely possible that it doesn't stand the test of time+. But people who insist on behaving like it's a joke or a toy when there is a multi-billion dollar economy around it and enormous chunks of pretty smart VC money (not to mention Stripe's investments in the ecosystem--they seem to know a thing or two about exchanging money on the internet) end up looking pretty stupid. + I can certainly appreciate the opinion that Bitcoin won't survive in its present form, but I think it's becoming more and more obvious that cryptocurrency in general won't be leaving us any time soon, and I think ignoring Bitcoin's role in that development is extremely foolish.
- robinhoode 12y ago
  And if you notice, they aren't ignoring Bitcoin's role, they're attacking it! So in a sense, they are helping crypto by admitting Bitcoin's faults and attempting their own solution.
ghshephard 12y ago
He made a strong case on a single argument against bitcoin several times - which is the need to wait for the better part of half an hour to confirm a transaction. I still don't understand how bitcoin will ever overcome that obstacle for casual transactions (as opposed to ones in which a 30 minute delay isn't a problem)
- VMG 12y ago
  That is a mediocre argument against one narrow use case. A valid transaction which is widely seen in the network will be part of the blockchain with a high degree of certainty, even if it is just a few seconds old. That is not perfect, but the risk of accepting unverified transactions with low volume is very low. It is important to remember that most systems that we use today have serious flaws, including payment systems like credit cards and cash. Bitcoin doesn't have to be perfect in order to succeed.
  - ghshephard 12y ago
    Every single person I've discussed Bitcoin with has identified the requirement to wait 3 confirmations, or 30 minutes as the fatal flaw for casual commerce. In fact, we spend quite a bit of time spitballing coming up with systems to overcome it (Giving your wallet some sort of "reputation" is common - but then requires you always spend from the same wallet, and also leaves the system open to a wholesale attack in which a common wallet app might double spend from a lot of people at the same time) If someone could come up with a response to that single flaw, I think most of the others (increasing transactions per second, size of the block chain, etc...) can be overcome.
    - VMG 12y ago
      How likely is it that a valid transaction that is seen by a large part of the network won't be included in the blockchain? How likely a credit card chargeback?
      - ghshephard 12y ago
        Re: "How likely is it that a valid transaction that is seen by a large part of the network won't be included in the blockchain?" My understanding is that if you don't wait for multiple confirmations, then it's not particularly challenging to double spend bitcoins. That's why vendors don't accept a transaction as "good" until multiple transactions have occurred. And waiting for 30 minutes to pay your restaurant bill would kind of suck.
tptacek 12y ago
It is incredibly obnoxious to pre-insult an essay you couldn't possibly have read. The subtext you've managed to communicate is that your mind can't easily accommodate the idea that a long essay on flaws in Bitcoin could be anything other than a rhetorical strategy to hide the truth.

by VMG 12y ago

w1ntermute 12y ago

For those who don't know what a Gish Gallop is: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

napoleond 12y ago

I wish I could upvote this twice. I spent a long time trying to write a similar comment and eventually deleted it; yours is better. Of course Bitcoin isn't perfect and it's entirely possible that it doesn't stand the test of time+. But people who insist on behaving like it's a joke or a toy when there is a multi-billion dollar economy around it and enormous chunks of pretty smart VC money (not to mention Stripe's investments in the ecosystem--they seem to know a thing or two about exchanging money on the internet) end up looking pretty stupid. + I can certainly appreciate the opinion that Bitcoin won't survive in its present form, but I think it's becoming more and more obvious that cryptocurrency in general won't be leaving us any time soon, and I think ignoring Bitcoin's role in that development is extremely foolish.

robinhoode 12y ago
And if you notice, they aren't ignoring Bitcoin's role, they're attacking it! So in a sense, they are helping crypto by admitting Bitcoin's faults and attempting their own solution.

ghshephard 12y ago

He made a strong case on a single argument against bitcoin several times - which is the need to wait for the better part of half an hour to confirm a transaction. I still don't understand how bitcoin will ever overcome that obstacle for casual transactions (as opposed to ones in which a 30 minute delay isn't a problem)

VMG 12y ago
That is a mediocre argument against one narrow use case. A valid transaction which is widely seen in the network will be part of the blockchain with a high degree of certainty, even if it is just a few seconds old. That is not perfect, but the risk of accepting unverified transactions with low volume is very low. It is important to remember that most systems that we use today have serious flaws, including payment systems like credit cards and cash. Bitcoin doesn't have to be perfect in order to succeed.
- ghshephard 12y ago
  Every single person I've discussed Bitcoin with has identified the requirement to wait 3 confirmations, or 30 minutes as the fatal flaw for casual commerce. In fact, we spend quite a bit of time spitballing coming up with systems to overcome it (Giving your wallet some sort of "reputation" is common - but then requires you always spend from the same wallet, and also leaves the system open to a wholesale attack in which a common wallet app might double spend from a lot of people at the same time) If someone could come up with a response to that single flaw, I think most of the others (increasing transactions per second, size of the block chain, etc...) can be overcome.
  - VMG 12y ago
    How likely is it that a valid transaction that is seen by a large part of the network won't be included in the blockchain? How likely a credit card chargeback?
    - ghshephard 12y ago
      Re: "How likely is it that a valid transaction that is seen by a large part of the network won't be included in the blockchain?" My understanding is that if you don't wait for multiple confirmations, then it's not particularly challenging to double spend bitcoins. That's why vendors don't accept a transaction as "good" until multiple transactions have occurred. And waiting for 30 minutes to pay your restaurant bill would kind of suck.

tptacek 12y ago

It is incredibly obnoxious to pre-insult an essay you couldn't possibly have read. The subtext you've managed to communicate is that your mind can't easily accommodate the idea that a long essay on flaws in Bitcoin could be anything other than a rhetorical strategy to hide the truth.