4 ms·

On a day-to-day basis, bitcoin takes ages to confirm that payment has been received, supports somewhere around 3 [three] transactions per second, and shifts ris

On a day-to-day basis, bitcoin takes ages to confirm that payment has been received, supports somewhere around 3 [three] transactions per second, and shifts risk from sellers to buyers (e.g. compare refund possibilities with credit cards). There are various hacks that are being proposed to increase the number of transactions per second, and reduce confirmation time. Ultimately, they're just that, though: hacks on a proof-of-concept. What I'm really interested in is whether it's possible to have a cryptocurrency that doesn't rely on e.g. blockchain technology. How you'd fix the issue of double-spending ("I can just copy-and-paste my money - yippee!") without a blockchain or equivalent is beyond me. I'm just really intrigued by the idea of being able to cryptographically sign over a digital $5-equivalent -note to someone else, instantaneously, and without relying on a third party saying "Hmm, yep, that note looks legit to me". Sadly, a lot of bitcoin's popularity seems to come from people who sincerely hope and believe that it's their lottery ticket to millions in the future. Whilst these people are vocal, it's probably a good idea to be aware of and filter out their voices.

bjelkeman-again 12y ago
As to your last point, it always surprises me that an argument for Bitcoin often is made in the style "remove the oppression/control by central banks". To be replaced by what? Oppression/control by early Bitcoin speculators [1]? No thanks. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/927-people-own-half-of-the-bitcoins-2013-12?IR=T http://www.businessinsider.com/927-people-own-half-of-the-bi...
eblanshey 12y ago
> What I'm really interested in is whether it's possible to have a cryptocurrency that doesn't rely on e.g. blockchain technology. Yes, it is possible. MaidSafe is building the solution as we speak, and does not get anywhere near the attention it deserves. Because there is such a general lack of understanding of its underpinnings, it is usually lumped together with other blockchain technologies or altcoins. There is no blockchain, there are no transaction fees, and transactions are irreversible almost immediately (no confirmation time). There is no wasteful mining. I wrote a pretty comprehensive article[0] on how it works from a technological standpoint if anyone is interested. Perhaps someone will find it useful. [0] http://blanshey.com/introduction-to-maidsafe-what-it-is-how-it-works-and-how-it-compares-to-bitcoin/ http://blanshey.com/introduction-to-maidsafe-what-it-is-how-...
- mootothemax 12y ago
  MaidSafe is building the solution as we speak Doing an admittedly very brief search, it seems there's a lot of scepticism about MaidSafe, ranging from it's "objectively a scam," through to a highly questionable IPO, and doubt over the core technology itself: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8081247 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8081247 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7641149 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7641149 http://www.reddit.com/r/crypto/comments/24zext/what_does_rcrypto_think_of_maidsafes_self/ http://www.reddit.com/r/crypto/comments/24zext/what_does_rcr... Clarifying on my original point about not relying on blockchain technology, I think imagining a purely offline system would get closer to the question in my head. How much can be done without relying on a network / database / blockchain etc?
  - eblanshey 12y ago
    There is a lot of scepticism indeed, mainly because what they're doing is so new. (The IPO was not questionable at all IMO, that's just FUD.) In any case, the objections and scepticism is healthy and would only serve to improve the project. I'm not really sure what you're implying though--how can you have a cryptocurrency without communication (e.g. a network)?
    - mootothemax 12y ago
      mainly because what they're doing is so new I (possibly obviously) haven't done enough research in the area, but it seems like there are potentially showstopper questions about how to stop people gaming the system. The reddit link also questioned how much of MaidSafe is, in effect, security through obscurity. One thing that can be said - it's definitely interesting! How can you have a cryptocurrency without communication? Exactly - that's kinda what I'm asking! :) Another rephrasing: is it possible to have some bitcoin-equivalent token sat on your computer which you can exchange for goods and services without consulting anyone else? As far as I can tell, it's the double-spending problem that's the killer.
exo762 12y ago
>> shifts risk from sellers to buyers (e.g. compare refund possibilities with credit cards). Dollar couples financial services with money transmission. Bitcoin allows to decouple those. Refunds can be covered by escrow services (with small help of 3-of-2 multisig) which can be provided by multiple parties, not only by your CC/bank. Please provide a single example of service that can be provided by CCs but can not be provided by companies that operate on Bitcoin network. >> There are various hacks that are being proposed to increase the number of transactions per second, and reduce confirmation time. Confirmation time is irrelevant, what you really care about in POS situation is TX delivery time - and it's covered by BIP70. BitPay serves BIP70 since Feb 2014. TPS scales to Visa levels and beyond and there is nothing "hacky" about that. Increased block size are countered by IBLTs. Want to talk about hacks of all kind? Talk about today's banks tech. Hundreds of millions of dollars being stolen by hackers, hundreds of billions of dollars of drug money being laundered by HSBC and friends, tech out of sixties, broken security model of CC, huge amount of regulation that attempts to fix all this mess. Costs costs costs. This is unfixable mess. Disclosure - I own small(!) amount of Bitcoin.
- rtpg 12y ago
  >Please provide a single example of service that can be provided by CCs but can not be provided by companies that operate on Bitcoin network. more or less instant transactions? Like the guy said, transactions take forever with BTC
  - exo762 12y ago
    Ok, there are two types of transactions. Ones where you want to be able to spend money that you've just received - those are slow with Bitcoin (ETA 5 minutes). This is a price you pay for your independence of banks. You can transfer money to anyone anytime and this type of transaction is impossible with VISA. Other - when you pay with BTC at point of sale (POS) and only thing you care about is your counterparty being able to say "thank you for your money". Those are covered by BIP70, which makes transaction as fast and faster then VISA.
lectrick 12y ago
> bitcoin takes ages to confirm Ten minutes, and if you want to assume just a little bit of risk, you can simply wait until the transaction appears on the blockchain, which is pretty instantaneous. In all my bitcoin transactions, I haven't encountered a single double-spend. > supports somewhere around 3 [three] transactions per second This is flat-out wrong. Please check your facts before spreading misinformation. It CURRENTLY supports 7 [seven] transactions per second, and this cap was fixed in software, by limiting the block size to 1MB. It can be raised quite a bit (by raising the maximum block size), the devs were simply a little unsure what would happen, so they capped it at 7TPS. Source: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability > and shifts risk from sellers to buyers (e.g. compare refund possibilities with credit cards) Yes, let's compare. You can always reverse a credit card charge, or dispute it. There are known scams done by abusing PayPal, for example. > various hacks that are being proposed to increase the number of transactions per second There are no "hacks". It would simply be: Increase the maximum block size. In all likelihood, things would still work fine. Please read the Scalability doc I linked above. > hacks on a proof-of-concept Do you realize this "proof of concept" has been operating for 6 years now? With only a couple of hiccups which were quickly corrected? And that there are almost (if not more than) 500 (!) other cryptocurrencies out there, based on the same idea or variations thereof? > whether it's possible to have a cryptocurrency that doesn't rely on e.g. blockchain technology. Unknown, unless someone thinks of one. Just like it was unknown whether a decentralized transaction ledger could be secured, before Satoshi Nakamoto thought of one. And when someone does, that could simply be applied to any existing cryptocurrency. > without a blockchain or equivalent is beyond me. There is something called "Proof of Stake". You can google. It has some possible flaws, though. There are also other hybrid solutions. > the idea of being able to cryptographically sign over a digital $5-equivalent -note to someone else, instantaneously, and without relying on a third party That is impossible. You simply can't "rewrite" the dollar monetary system to use a decentralized technology. They use entirely different semantics. Say I wanted to "convert" an actual $5 to a "new, cryptographically secured, decentralized" dollar. What authority (see, you can't have any authorities in a decentralized scheme) would validate the $5, and then what authority (there's that word again) would issue you a credit in this new scheme? The new scheme would inevitably have to be centralized by fallible humans, unless you came up with a robot that would somehow validate a $20 bill, then completely destroy it while issuing you a "crypto dollar credit", which would somehow magically stay pinned to the US dollar... See, it doesn't work that way. Even "real" currencies don't work that way, they can all be speculated on, it's just that their pool of currency is so much deeper and their penetration so much wider (and their value pinned to enough real-world goods) that nobody really notices the ripple effects day-to-day. > Sadly, a lot of bitcoin's popularity seems to come from people who sincerely hope Are you seriously trying to disparage early-adopters, here. The same early adopters who adopt almost all new things and push them out into the mainstream... > it's probably a good idea to be aware of and filter out their voices Yes. Screw those rotten kids excited about new things! Let's wake them from their dreams and poop in their cereals, and give them a dose of reality!

bjelkeman-again 12y ago

As to your last point, it always surprises me that an argument for Bitcoin often is made in the style "remove the oppression/control by central banks". To be replaced by what? Oppression/control by early Bitcoin speculators [1]? No thanks. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/927-people-own-half-of-the-bitcoins-2013-12?IR=T http://www.businessinsider.com/927-people-own-half-of-the-bi...

eblanshey 12y ago

> What I'm really interested in is whether it's possible to have a cryptocurrency that doesn't rely on e.g. blockchain technology. Yes, it is possible. MaidSafe is building the solution as we speak, and does not get anywhere near the attention it deserves. Because there is such a general lack of understanding of its underpinnings, it is usually lumped together with other blockchain technologies or altcoins. There is no blockchain, there are no transaction fees, and transactions are irreversible almost immediately (no confirmation time). There is no wasteful mining. I wrote a pretty comprehensive article[0] on how it works from a technological standpoint if anyone is interested. Perhaps someone will find it useful. [0] http://blanshey.com/introduction-to-maidsafe-what-it-is-how-it-works-and-how-it-compares-to-bitcoin/ http://blanshey.com/introduction-to-maidsafe-what-it-is-how-...

mootothemax 12y ago
MaidSafe is building the solution as we speak Doing an admittedly very brief search, it seems there's a lot of scepticism about MaidSafe, ranging from it's "objectively a scam," through to a highly questionable IPO, and doubt over the core technology itself: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8081247 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8081247 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7641149 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7641149 http://www.reddit.com/r/crypto/comments/24zext/what_does_rcrypto_think_of_maidsafes_self/ http://www.reddit.com/r/crypto/comments/24zext/what_does_rcr... Clarifying on my original point about not relying on blockchain technology, I think imagining a purely offline system would get closer to the question in my head. How much can be done without relying on a network / database / blockchain etc?
- eblanshey 12y ago
  There is a lot of scepticism indeed, mainly because what they're doing is so new. (The IPO was not questionable at all IMO, that's just FUD.) In any case, the objections and scepticism is healthy and would only serve to improve the project. I'm not really sure what you're implying though--how can you have a cryptocurrency without communication (e.g. a network)?
  - mootothemax 12y ago
    mainly because what they're doing is so new I (possibly obviously) haven't done enough research in the area, but it seems like there are potentially showstopper questions about how to stop people gaming the system. The reddit link also questioned how much of MaidSafe is, in effect, security through obscurity. One thing that can be said - it's definitely interesting! How can you have a cryptocurrency without communication? Exactly - that's kinda what I'm asking! :) Another rephrasing: is it possible to have some bitcoin-equivalent token sat on your computer which you can exchange for goods and services without consulting anyone else? As far as I can tell, it's the double-spending problem that's the killer.

exo762 12y ago

>> shifts risk from sellers to buyers (e.g. compare refund possibilities with credit cards). Dollar couples financial services with money transmission. Bitcoin allows to decouple those. Refunds can be covered by escrow services (with small help of 3-of-2 multisig) which can be provided by multiple parties, not only by your CC/bank. Please provide a single example of service that can be provided by CCs but can not be provided by companies that operate on Bitcoin network. >> There are various hacks that are being proposed to increase the number of transactions per second, and reduce confirmation time. Confirmation time is irrelevant, what you really care about in POS situation is TX delivery time - and it's covered by BIP70. BitPay serves BIP70 since Feb 2014. TPS scales to Visa levels and beyond and there is nothing "hacky" about that. Increased block size are countered by IBLTs. Want to talk about hacks of all kind? Talk about today's banks tech. Hundreds of millions of dollars being stolen by hackers, hundreds of billions of dollars of drug money being laundered by HSBC and friends, tech out of sixties, broken security model of CC, huge amount of regulation that attempts to fix all this mess. Costs costs costs. This is unfixable mess. Disclosure - I own small(!) amount of Bitcoin.

rtpg 12y ago
>Please provide a single example of service that can be provided by CCs but can not be provided by companies that operate on Bitcoin network. more or less instant transactions? Like the guy said, transactions take forever with BTC
- exo762 12y ago
  Ok, there are two types of transactions. Ones where you want to be able to spend money that you've just received - those are slow with Bitcoin (ETA 5 minutes). This is a price you pay for your independence of banks. You can transfer money to anyone anytime and this type of transaction is impossible with VISA. Other - when you pay with BTC at point of sale (POS) and only thing you care about is your counterparty being able to say "thank you for your money". Those are covered by BIP70, which makes transaction as fast and faster then VISA.

lectrick 12y ago

> bitcoin takes ages to confirm Ten minutes, and if you want to assume just a little bit of risk, you can simply wait until the transaction appears on the blockchain, which is pretty instantaneous. In all my bitcoin transactions, I haven't encountered a single double-spend. > supports somewhere around 3 [three] transactions per second This is flat-out wrong. Please check your facts before spreading misinformation. It CURRENTLY supports 7 [seven] transactions per second, and this cap was fixed in software, by limiting the block size to 1MB. It can be raised quite a bit (by raising the maximum block size), the devs were simply a little unsure what would happen, so they capped it at 7TPS. Source: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability > and shifts risk from sellers to buyers (e.g. compare refund possibilities with credit cards) Yes, let's compare. You can always reverse a credit card charge, or dispute it. There are known scams done by abusing PayPal, for example. > various hacks that are being proposed to increase the number of transactions per second There are no "hacks". It would simply be: Increase the maximum block size. In all likelihood, things would still work fine. Please read the Scalability doc I linked above. > hacks on a proof-of-concept Do you realize this "proof of concept" has been operating for 6 years now? With only a couple of hiccups which were quickly corrected? And that there are almost (if not more than) 500 (!) other cryptocurrencies out there, based on the same idea or variations thereof? > whether it's possible to have a cryptocurrency that doesn't rely on e.g. blockchain technology. Unknown, unless someone thinks of one. Just like it was unknown whether a decentralized transaction ledger could be secured, before Satoshi Nakamoto thought of one. And when someone does, that could simply be applied to any existing cryptocurrency. > without a blockchain or equivalent is beyond me. There is something called "Proof of Stake". You can google. It has some possible flaws, though. There are also other hybrid solutions. > the idea of being able to cryptographically sign over a digital $5-equivalent -note to someone else, instantaneously, and without relying on a third party That is impossible. You simply can't "rewrite" the dollar monetary system to use a decentralized technology. They use entirely different semantics. Say I wanted to "convert" an actual $5 to a "new, cryptographically secured, decentralized" dollar. What authority (see, you can't have any authorities in a decentralized scheme) would validate the $5, and then what authority (there's that word again) would issue you a credit in this new scheme? The new scheme would inevitably have to be centralized by fallible humans, unless you came up with a robot that would somehow validate a $20 bill, then completely destroy it while issuing you a "crypto dollar credit", which would somehow magically stay pinned to the US dollar... See, it doesn't work that way. Even "real" currencies don't work that way, they can all be speculated on, it's just that their pool of currency is so much deeper and their penetration so much wider (and their value pinned to enough real-world goods) that nobody really notices the ripple effects day-to-day. > Sadly, a lot of bitcoin's popularity seems to come from people who sincerely hope Are you seriously trying to disparage early-adopters, here. The same early adopters who adopt almost all new things and push them out into the mainstream... > it's probably a good idea to be aware of and filter out their voices Yes. Screw those rotten kids excited about new things! Let's wake them from their dreams and poop in their cereals, and give them a dose of reality!