5 ms·

A Bitcoin Battle Is Brewing

44 points by hackerjam 12y ago

bernardlunn 12y ago
no comments, yet trending. its a complex subject, i was hoping for some HN commenters to shed some light
panhandlr 12y ago
The story here is: "we have to post bitcoin related articles everyday to keep the price of BTC up"
otoburb 12y ago
Nothing stops alt-coins from continuing to exist independently as they do today if sidechains are implemented. I liked the VoIP analogy, although other examples abound where an initial network effect was supplanted by competing implementations (e.g. search engines, social networking).
- imaginenore 12y ago
  > Nothing stops alt-coins from continuing to exist independently as they do today if sidechains are implemented. Network Effect does.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
pearjuice 12y ago
Ah, the weekly Bitcoin hype thread. That there is still future for BTC other than a specific niche. The make believe story. In case there are still people not fooled yet. Don't get me wrong, I like BTC. But this speculation driven value investment is not the right way.
- ThomPete 12y ago
  Replace bitcoin in what you just said with internet, VOIP, airplanes, ipod and you got a pretty solid template for historic underestimations of technology in the long run.
  - bdcravens 12y ago
    Bitcoin is a duality, something with utility while being traded. All of your examples provided a utility which drove revenue; Bitcoin tends to be reversed.
  - danbruc 12y ago
    All the things you mention have value. But what is the value of using Bitcoins for the average person? Where are Bitcoins so obviously better than a credit card that switching is a good decision?
    - nickthemagicman 12y ago
      I was trying to think of a good answer but you're right. The key advantages are decentralization and anonymity and to the average person who just wants a simple secure payment solution a credit card has all the advantages.
      - daveytea 12y ago
        Bitcoin is not anonymous and not meant to be. It never will be and shouldn't be to gain widespread adoption. For the average person, I can list a few reasons: - near immediate transfer of money across international borders - close to zero fees or greatly reduced fees when transferring money internationally - safe and secure store of value (for the unbanked) Then there are the future killer apps that will be created - tipping on the internet (changeTip / Coinbase) - programatic money - smart contracts - pure play digital banking - ?? It's hard to see how bitcoin could apply to the general public sitting at your computer in a first world country. But keep in mind there are nearly 5 billion unbanked or unserved people in the world where bitcoin (or similar) will change their life.
px1999 12y ago
I'm not trying to be snarky, but wtf did I just read? The article: * people are beginning to take bitcoin more seriously. * there are multiple cryptocurrencies * bitcoin is the biggest * namedropping for blockstream * namedropping for stellar * ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ * maybe the real competition between cryptocurrencies is still to come I'm not sure of the message or the point here. My guess would be to namedrop blockstream, but the whole thing is unfocussed and confusing to me.
- pearjuice 12y ago
  What, are you saying they publish Bitcoin articles for the sake of publishing Bitcoin articles? That would upset a lot of people!
elpachuco 12y ago
>>Lest you think I’m taking sides already, let me stress that it’s not at all clear that AC is actually better than DC No, it has been settled for almost a hundred years that AC, for long distance transmission, is the best. Too bad he included something like this. It diminishes his credibility and colors the entire article. Edit: So I seem to be quite wrong. Well, at least now I know. I stand corrected.
- tormeh 12y ago
  DC is better over long distances than AC. The problem with DC is that generators and many engines operate on AC and that was more important at the beginning of electricity use.
  - wlesieutre 12y ago
    The other big caveat being that for both AC and DC, you want to do long distance transmission at very high voltages. DC transmission has been put to real world use (converted back to AC into the grid), and it tends to be on the order of 100,000 to 1,000,000 volts. Historically, AC was much more feasible to do this with because you can change the voltage with transformers, which are basically paired coils of copper wire. These days we have the capability to convert between AC and high voltage DC, but it's still requires comparatively complicated equipment and isn't as reliable.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- kwantam 12y ago
  No it hasn't. AC transmission is nice for a few reasons, but the biggest reason for its use historically historically has been that you can step down from high to low voltage with a passive element (a transformer). (Why step up and down? You want to transmit at the highest voltage you can to reduce conduction losses (higher V -> lower I for the same P, and thus lower I^2 * R losses).) But long distance AC transmission is ugly in a bunch of ways. For one, over very long distances a power line becomes a reasonably efficient 60 Hz antenna, which means radiated losses in addition to conduction losses. For another, AC generators want to produce 3-phase power; transmitting this directly means more wire, balancing phases, et cetera. Further, AC transmission suffers additional conduction losses when reactively loaded because of circulating currents (this is why people care about "power factor"). In practice, the complexity of managing the reactive loading of HVAC transmision wires is substantial: transformer nonidealities turn a resistive load on the secondary into a slightly reactive load seen at the primary, which introduces circulating losses. And let's not forget that an AC grid requires that all the generators feeding the grid are precisely synchronized, while a DC grid has no such synchronization issues, which simplifies the task of bringing power plants up and down. By comparison, DC transmission requires complexity at the sender and receiver: generation is for the most part a fundamentally AC process (i.e., electrical generators), and of course homes are built for AC power, so the receiver must switch DC back to AC. But as power devices become better and cheaper, and the power grid's load increases (without commensurate increase in copper to handle higher currents), long distance DC transmission is becoming more commonplace. (And since modern AC transmission requires some power factor management anyway, the choice really isn't between "dumb transformer" and "massive inverter" anyhow.) For example, when I lived in Boston it received a substantial amount of its power as HVDC from somewhere in Canada. Three big (like, BIG) inverting stations around town were responsible for turning this DC into AC for local transmission. This setup ostensibly saved substantially on conducted and radiated transmission losses, according to the folks who gave us a tour of one of the inversion stations. Wikipedia has more on this topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
applecore 12y ago
Blockstream's eleven (!) founders include the majority of Bitcoin's core developers—they're also the ones pushing most fervently for a fork of the Bitcoin protocol. Is there anything to be worried about here? (That is, besides the perplexing nature of a startup raising a $21 million “seed round” for its multitudinous founders to develop an entirely new and unproven technology stack.)
- maaku 12y ago
  No if you mean people with commit bit, we have just two of the five active developers. The community of Bitcoin developers is much larger though and we come no where near a majority.
adrianwaj 12y ago
"I suspect most people who have heard of Bitcoin don’t even know alternatives exist." True. In a world with fiat, bitcoin is king due to liquidity. In a world without fiat, it's much easier to consider alternatives. Personally I'd like to see a wallet that holds many currencies, and can do all the conversion automatically. "priced in ___coin? okay" "You want to pay with ____coin? sure!" "You only accept ___coin? no probs!" And apps like http://shapeshift.io http://shapeshift.io can help with background conversions. Thus, the long-tail of crypto becomes more relevant. For me, it's not a battle of bitcoin, rather it's a battle of "either/or" (now) vs "both/and" (future.) I also think the future is coming faster than we think. People will want bitcoin alternatives, especially people that want to make money and think there are better coins that can do that (and will give them a try.) add: to give an example of this war, I placed a link to http://snapcard.io http://snapcard.io in reddit-bitcoin for a shop owner in France wanting to accept digital currencies. Result: -1 downvotes, 4 hours ago. Why? I presume because they are a multi-crypto POS startup. Bitcoin is full of the same people that were trashing it when it first came out. Now they are trashing any alternatives. I don't want to be part of that. They're neither cool, nor smart.

44 points by hackerjam 12y ago

bernardlunn 12y ago

no comments, yet trending. its a complex subject, i was hoping for some HN commenters to shed some light

panhandlr 12y ago

The story here is: "we have to post bitcoin related articles everyday to keep the price of BTC up"

otoburb 12y ago

Nothing stops alt-coins from continuing to exist independently as they do today if sidechains are implemented. I liked the VoIP analogy, although other examples abound where an initial network effect was supplanted by competing implementations (e.g. search engines, social networking).

imaginenore 12y ago
> Nothing stops alt-coins from continuing to exist independently as they do today if sidechains are implemented. Network Effect does.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

pearjuice 12y ago

Ah, the weekly Bitcoin hype thread. That there is still future for BTC other than a specific niche. The make believe story. In case there are still people not fooled yet. Don't get me wrong, I like BTC. But this speculation driven value investment is not the right way.

ThomPete 12y ago
Replace bitcoin in what you just said with internet, VOIP, airplanes, ipod and you got a pretty solid template for historic underestimations of technology in the long run.
- bdcravens 12y ago
  Bitcoin is a duality, something with utility while being traded. All of your examples provided a utility which drove revenue; Bitcoin tends to be reversed.
- danbruc 12y ago
  All the things you mention have value. But what is the value of using Bitcoins for the average person? Where are Bitcoins so obviously better than a credit card that switching is a good decision?
  - nickthemagicman 12y ago
    I was trying to think of a good answer but you're right. The key advantages are decentralization and anonymity and to the average person who just wants a simple secure payment solution a credit card has all the advantages.
    - daveytea 12y ago
      Bitcoin is not anonymous and not meant to be. It never will be and shouldn't be to gain widespread adoption. For the average person, I can list a few reasons: - near immediate transfer of money across international borders - close to zero fees or greatly reduced fees when transferring money internationally - safe and secure store of value (for the unbanked) Then there are the future killer apps that will be created - tipping on the internet (changeTip / Coinbase) - programatic money - smart contracts - pure play digital banking - ?? It's hard to see how bitcoin could apply to the general public sitting at your computer in a first world country. But keep in mind there are nearly 5 billion unbanked or unserved people in the world where bitcoin (or similar) will change their life.

px1999 12y ago

I'm not trying to be snarky, but wtf did I just read? The article: * people are beginning to take bitcoin more seriously. * there are multiple cryptocurrencies * bitcoin is the biggest * namedropping for blockstream * namedropping for stellar * ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ * maybe the real competition between cryptocurrencies is still to come I'm not sure of the message or the point here. My guess would be to namedrop blockstream, but the whole thing is unfocussed and confusing to me.

pearjuice 12y ago
What, are you saying they publish Bitcoin articles for the sake of publishing Bitcoin articles? That would upset a lot of people!

elpachuco 12y ago

>>Lest you think I’m taking sides already, let me stress that it’s not at all clear that AC is actually better than DC No, it has been settled for almost a hundred years that AC, for long distance transmission, is the best. Too bad he included something like this. It diminishes his credibility and colors the entire article. Edit: So I seem to be quite wrong. Well, at least now I know. I stand corrected.

tormeh 12y ago
DC is better over long distances than AC. The problem with DC is that generators and many engines operate on AC and that was more important at the beginning of electricity use.
- wlesieutre 12y ago
  The other big caveat being that for both AC and DC, you want to do long distance transmission at very high voltages. DC transmission has been put to real world use (converted back to AC into the grid), and it tends to be on the order of 100,000 to 1,000,000 volts. Historically, AC was much more feasible to do this with because you can change the voltage with transformers, which are basically paired coils of copper wire. These days we have the capability to convert between AC and high voltage DC, but it's still requires comparatively complicated equipment and isn't as reliable.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
kwantam 12y ago
No it hasn't. AC transmission is nice for a few reasons, but the biggest reason for its use historically historically has been that you can step down from high to low voltage with a passive element (a transformer). (Why step up and down? You want to transmit at the highest voltage you can to reduce conduction losses (higher V -> lower I for the same P, and thus lower I^2 * R losses).) But long distance AC transmission is ugly in a bunch of ways. For one, over very long distances a power line becomes a reasonably efficient 60 Hz antenna, which means radiated losses in addition to conduction losses. For another, AC generators want to produce 3-phase power; transmitting this directly means more wire, balancing phases, et cetera. Further, AC transmission suffers additional conduction losses when reactively loaded because of circulating currents (this is why people care about "power factor"). In practice, the complexity of managing the reactive loading of HVAC transmision wires is substantial: transformer nonidealities turn a resistive load on the secondary into a slightly reactive load seen at the primary, which introduces circulating losses. And let's not forget that an AC grid requires that all the generators feeding the grid are precisely synchronized, while a DC grid has no such synchronization issues, which simplifies the task of bringing power plants up and down. By comparison, DC transmission requires complexity at the sender and receiver: generation is for the most part a fundamentally AC process (i.e., electrical generators), and of course homes are built for AC power, so the receiver must switch DC back to AC. But as power devices become better and cheaper, and the power grid's load increases (without commensurate increase in copper to handle higher currents), long distance DC transmission is becoming more commonplace. (And since modern AC transmission requires some power factor management anyway, the choice really isn't between "dumb transformer" and "massive inverter" anyhow.) For example, when I lived in Boston it received a substantial amount of its power as HVDC from somewhere in Canada. Three big (like, BIG) inverting stations around town were responsible for turning this DC into AC for local transmission. This setup ostensibly saved substantially on conducted and radiated transmission losses, according to the folks who gave us a tour of one of the inversion stations. Wikipedia has more on this topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current

applecore 12y ago

Blockstream's eleven (!) founders include the majority of Bitcoin's core developers—they're also the ones pushing most fervently for a fork of the Bitcoin protocol. Is there anything to be worried about here? (That is, besides the perplexing nature of a startup raising a $21 million “seed round” for its multitudinous founders to develop an entirely new and unproven technology stack.)

maaku 12y ago
No if you mean people with commit bit, we have just two of the five active developers. The community of Bitcoin developers is much larger though and we come no where near a majority.

adrianwaj 12y ago

"I suspect most people who have heard of Bitcoin don’t even know alternatives exist." True. In a world with fiat, bitcoin is king due to liquidity. In a world without fiat, it's much easier to consider alternatives. Personally I'd like to see a wallet that holds many currencies, and can do all the conversion automatically. "priced in ___coin? okay" "You want to pay with ____coin? sure!" "You only accept ___coin? no probs!" And apps like http://shapeshift.io http://shapeshift.io can help with background conversions. Thus, the long-tail of crypto becomes more relevant. For me, it's not a battle of bitcoin, rather it's a battle of "either/or" (now) vs "both/and" (future.) I also think the future is coming faster than we think. People will want bitcoin alternatives, especially people that want to make money and think there are better coins that can do that (and will give them a try.) add: to give an example of this war, I placed a link to http://snapcard.io http://snapcard.io in reddit-bitcoin for a shop owner in France wanting to accept digital currencies. Result: -1 downvotes, 4 hours ago. Why? I presume because they are a multi-crypto POS startup. Bitcoin is full of the same people that were trashing it when it first came out. Now they are trashing any alternatives. I don't want to be part of that. They're neither cool, nor smart.