What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Bitcoins - anyone else mining? (1 Viewer)

Fascinating discussion here; I don't pretend to understand it all, but it's an interesting concept to say the least.

Jojo -

I don't think anybody here is hating on you. Personally, I don't care if this bitcoin thing comes, stays, lays or prays. I probably will not get into it. Having said that, your behavior regarding these things has me puzzled. From what I've read, you don't seem to own any bitcoins, yet passionately defend them as if you've quit your job and are banking on these for your livelihood.
If I owned bitcoins people would claim I am cheerleading for them so that my pile would be worth more.

If I don't own any people are puzzled as to why I would defend something I believe to be a groundbreaking technology.

Dr J (among others) has laid out some issues that would be disconcerting to me if I were to get involved. It seems as if there are serious flaws in bitcoins that merit a much closer look.
I haven't been impressed with any of the issues brought forward, I'm not trying to sound like a ####. I just don't think he understands what he is posting about and he has posted stuff from blogs of other people that don't sound like they know what they are talking about.
In a technology as new as this, something that happened 3 years ago is pretty much yesterday;
I completely disagree, when the first telephone was invented you had 2 people that could talk to each other, 3 years later you might have hundreds if not thousands of people that can talk to each other, the more advanced the technology and the more changes that are made to make it better if anything expand the timeframe rather than shrink it like you suggest. Facebook may be a better example than the telephone, there's no way the problems and hurdles faced by Facebook in the early days when it was on 1 college campus translate in anyway to present day based on the sheer size of the network it created. I tried to make light of this with the DDoS attacks which were used to manipulate price in the early days - this is no longer a problem.
Looking at this as a dispassionate observer, it's my opinion that you need to provide the evidence to refute the claims brought forth by J, CSTU and [icon]. Again, I don't have a dog in the fight; I would love to see an awesome discussion on this topic.
Again, as previously stated, I don't see any hard evidence for anything that needs refuting, I've asked for dates and times for recent examples of "things that need to be refuted" in recent history a number of times from CSTU and DrJ and I get nothing of substance in response. Maybe there is some fishy stuff going on today with bitcoin but I have yet to see any evidence of it in this thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's the data for the past day: http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#rg1ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zv

It made this really big jump from about from about 12AM to 3AM. Here's the block chain starting at about 12:00 AM to kick the price increase off. You can see how many need to move to cause such an increase...

Huge flurry of activity between about 12:00 and 1:30 (You'll see why I call this huge as the chain for the next 8 or so hours unfolds)

138 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000002b0bfa93bc8b2c2e046f719d595d9f0362ab5444128621151

1219 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000002e39a52c93acb5de574d3a0a920c58dd3850766fd1b22a433

871 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000037cc07887858aa50ebf7abec0616cae4b52dac547010cef67

2573 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000027a7c8e79c9f589b2fa791353d91edc4d0cda5643179aa6f7

629 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000001cde22896d5dab56239a9bebeca29a5311738d944532a4634

5727 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000002d79cd7069cedd05f49716354590bd5518b18a513b3b4d513

398 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000039a99dd09b3da5e206d3c064859c5bbdcb3e34dc2b97adc44

Things fall off quite a bit, but the value just keeps jumping.

422 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block-index/453180

1001 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000002f350faf1b5da0c17c676db6cc2dbefe7dfb98114ea069f89

131 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000148c7064fa5d5e58bb4f6abd2bba10873a595393bc3258b6a

107 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000001a7e6e46d32ca01bb162818e7849852682a03aab3a7a235dc

124 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000002fbe3e0b60cc0d90eaaf06f9951e6fa166e81975e7abbbb33

288 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000ab28586c1dda43f698383e2997f06fff331f974d0baf6dbf

420 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000ab28586c1dda43f698383e2997f06fff331f974d0baf6dbf

108 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000037c84ce6ff1ea3a5851efc95ab3a045f98d284f9699ab3d3f

1112 BTC (at 2:15): https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000037c84ce6ff1ea3a5851efc95ab3a045f98d284f9699ab3d3f

626 BTC; https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000002d1d84a8797b6acaad0de6e2239b48cc8bd03019153c874d3

138 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000002ab1e410dd69b84aeaf0caedcb7e3bde29e3f755cb68e96db

330 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000c5be02237d2f469449ffe83f7be25b5508d6f17ca0684c3e

28 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000003123ac9532696c737ee0b991513bedc70e437d388a8252298

53 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000031fba1384445b39fa47a4453f00f48ac656f7b808c9bfd337

80 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000020324a496aec65e05cf7f9849efa207c0f360160c5f3b6656

669 BTC (2:45): https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000001cc857762f972c7d3189058e41f58ad8b9636518b9649f276

559 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000319549d4774e00bc4a285637f4047e14e512e48410c41bd8b

555 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000643ae657e42898a5daea631c265829c5dc5fb56092baed45

188 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000445a9cc2a0cf645f1c31063ee47fbbcebbad2ad065e2cbf4

1007 BTC (4:00): https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000025ce0b74eb7009aacadf4b29ee0feda04057a0fc45563f150

820 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000c0b2d985b6b8ff8630f35d5c3acae2f628f00ff7e79e938a

235 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000017871bf646ec12c1e2dedacef87dcd357cea0da1ddb0b64b5

254 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000007010e7d490712b361f066d611ec788182baae459eae59b53

123 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000003600425f5be08c99592a7d751adb257721960d5c101b03598

243 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000002235e7e62677efd9cf09070507dc48ba4a339722058d64d58

13 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000d1d213c942e7bbe7274c32388422d4b3cce4048bcb360290

811 BTC (4:30): https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000085d0960bb0b128e691d1a47f81cab49429a146d0ee3bd597

445 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000081be5f9c4e1610bee086bbfccb38a7715e543d139db84958

624 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000069c6e0354bc155146d83842ad6b97fd0e5bdf93199322bba

222 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000069c6e0354bc155146d83842ad6b97fd0e5bdf93199322bba

During this time the price has moved from about $630 to 680. Off of just those trades.

Then right around here a lot start trading, you see chains with 1K or a couple thousand relatively frequently for a while:

1190 BTC (4:45): https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000084649a5d02ee86cef3916f355e3b6cfd4191377e8fefd987

.5 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000084649a5d02ee86cef3916f355e3b6cfd4191377e8fefd987

753 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000084649a5d02ee86cef3916f355e3b6cfd4191377e8fefd987

59 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000003629ed4de9785049a92dcba66d3dec6601e3e42a042afc411

149 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000036ae08beae1c2480da24c8528a62619c1eed5848279325619

0 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000157629a69981c52d1f28af221d43cb3c4ef3e532ba304f157

1400 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000c794ec1f9d496aade45e4b5b3869306722c63b5e0dc047fd

971 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000f2ae7a8af47a219a2aff805a297e7223c427bdc4c80bc412

525 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000b0564e9de957b6188bfe767ef6e529f9272dbe870dfcd768

775 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000002c29e079e41e426d3805bf60da05606233af4b6ca50d803bc

460 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000002e2e3a0fa2c7a5e5dd70f25bd6eff3488904d6171d7b5f07c

1500 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000002e2b21502357de14e435616143b2daa0435e7df5d2d935e6e

1007 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000280337cdcc620754266bf0e18f4e73e9802d218b9be643959

1956 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000aaef258bff946de36d6518ac044f68df19e1313f4794d4ba

428 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000301a0a15a4226ff85157c204e44882cae7ef75336c6a11d82

668 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000005ef750a67b2ff8319768c6377860f03665a9ad6feca35c0

538 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000121dcc371f2d88c486aa42b9045cf4199bd3a71ec59575d92

613 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000001f55f60acc751dbf3d410cfdd5926332fda24602ee1c5f119

466 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000003bf85d464b6d5020c5d1da6b75025b047151d34fdc1f9944

1081 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000015cc118aaa852a4051bc07f6a65ef91abab8b2eebecfdc29b

82 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000021bf9dcc3ad0548714f757397cd304c850a1dcb0a241c18fd

818 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000002f4f065da79ed8ee768bb0612aaefbf9a6d88ce70e119852b

The activity starts to fall off a bit:

54 BTC (8:30): https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000045eac5c7e12b7847e9849df268cf710f02af3cee87cc72d7

60 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000016f5f9a3d13a257a8f2578e4c2ef74dc946c1214089edb750

766 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000002826194c7404f6258eb9e649b085a6ea984e53d21842a2c8d

780 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000026bb69288c98287c5a38bdb72c32a4d0cde1850b760fa16b8

124 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000209caeaa80f87ef36cfece4767c3a07a1038ff0b6868ff628

272 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000007d3efae8fd27d1e305399c08534b3d34a3d0149344edf21a

618 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000001aa6f04c5a8b5ac65937fdf3b828fd0101803d42429a577df

690 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000003e586cf8198ae464013f958ec6d255e253321bf8ceb8d1ad

318 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000003893d9901ad92bc340c77e21b04312cb3fcce879bd394313b

55 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000001a00eb8630b047c74da5cc35564975a2ea5c0ffc27ccdc325

185 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000029701a14046f686c5e8c393bbb9d0470dd631cc7d58f5fbc5

331 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000020b999d3f37394b86b55679af76adccce02d401ccf21270dd

Now, the price has a nice little drop and there's some fierce trading. Interested in looking at the 16K movement closer, I bet it traces back to one of these goofy accounts:

2200 BTC (10:00 AM): https://blockchain.info/block-index/453274

37 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000045eac5c7e12b7847e9849df268cf710f02af3cee87cc72d7

16,210 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000001aa6d4ed44160d044fee7d407f2e00aee711c5d4b2abeeda4

254 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000001baeb93b046f1bb97319a20cd5fc30a872361049f24115fcd

188 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000242b23a7cbbf812e42f164d1fcee2e24686132257501f94c1

1025 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000027b627d8d27f8aef5601684d4cd9d02764807ecd9f1652ca9

Now, activity falls off a cliff again:

252 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000011edacd861b57b51b12d3ad4cfd412aa9e2a518425d166673

15 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000013251707a02993c39a1ded88fd8c9a1ecadd85af7d9df61d1

38 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000009a586c44ad7e9a5435ac4c281b6bc0edb1d53d86d74dbdac

274 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000035c19d75c2c4dfae9728739a5e8054212fa4095e73f6dbee8

229 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000015e4cfc10ed55a7fb317086d85d2beb1c72ce067035143793

58 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000011d90ac2c6f0fec57011e9ed9d4336acb9a9bb4f1bbc845e5

308 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000002b6afc724b88c695cb29c45dd33e0ad65e9c6116f02f5261a

252 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000002dde04c5624bc303259d9ee7bd47597218e039d4cd9561659

323 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000001e0daf18e25d124b9f7ec6b19c45c201b18c985ef87f8e7d4

573 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000001a446c62951ad19bcdb912f72b5864132f79e0954f450544a

398 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000185c9ed1e16f1223c5594c9ab7db5a2ef7d1f7a5f0fa8c70d

207 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000b7e14e26377e58f853fc9c39a59923b5fb5d8f80b10bedbe

95 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000001c7b0a93e8f8a8670027043d5a0ee3fd3f6a91f46277211dd

92 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000c42ddcca0448d2f4b4ab0417b735a9c3c66333d0a77a5681

287 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000000787ee6b209b6cf47de1b02ebfdfef6ea639e90a17d0621f

91 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000019c03dbe3ec7b287346669519757009aacfe19aa10ccd184e

456 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000003eb72ee25bbce530f64441b079e2f27009259f59ea03cd81

121 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000001550b43cdb8d4798c4f85751b49fc2e224ffc10709c138bbf

359 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000380c81d936f265a748664d899468c14d8d4ba355b12996ae5

468 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000001fd4863e9eeccc69fd3a30c2aaa82c6d5738055e5b08b5e98

1031 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000003846bc34ffeae9de82de42dad641ebe9d4ca888e29bb94502

663 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000002058dd7129f6c2ae84c4d362d4d089940b434eceed20ecc03

114 BTC: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000001e9c0c5821a6c9ee42e8b89ed5c390d096d1d1e91f35ae1bf

Yeah, I can see how this is hard to manipulate. You usually have hundreds of these, maybe a thousand moving around at any given point. And some guys with piles of several hundred thousand to play games within this, who seem to be able to move the price some every time a couple thousand of them hit the market.
Why do you assume every transaction is a trade? More than half of these anonymous transactions that actually have readable text say SatoshiBones 50pct or pinballcoin which both sound like gaming/gambling the other half that have no text there is no context of what the transactions are. What I am getting at is how are you able to reconcile any of these transactions as relevant trades for USD to correlate with the 1 link I left in your post showing trading activity?
Great, so there's even less trades happening on exchanges to drive the prices up and down. Some of them are transactions that have no effect on the price. That actually makes it worse.

Huh? You keep posting these links upon links of blockchains and expect everyone to believe you that these are trades happening on exchanges - why are you doing this? There is no context of what these transactions represent so you cannot draw conclusions off of them.
No, most of the earlier ones were demonstrating the laundering as described in the RSA paper. Not intentionally, I just went looking for data anomalies (like the fact that seemingly every BTC in existence traded all over the place for a 3 day period in late 2011: https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address= ) and it all just happened to match what they described (and were rather generous on based on what I see).

These ones were to demonstrate that all it takes is a small amount of movement for the price to rapidly swing. And typically when it does move you see activity from one of these large accounts, a lot of transactions for exactly the same amount, things like that. I'm not doubting there are legitimate transactions happening among some of this, that's quite clear. Like a 100-200 bitcoins spread over a few hundred tranasctions in each block typically, most of them with these markings you describe like "SatoshiBones" and stuff.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And yes, I checked and you are correct that SatoshiBones and pinballcoin are casinos. So small online gambling operations seem to make up a large percentage of their legitimate transactions.

No problems with that fact myself - we should all be free to gamble as much as we like, and I consider that to be a redeeming quality. But the claim that's been made that the vast majority of transactions where it's actually used as currency are on activities that are illegal (and shouldn't be IMO) seems pretty based in fact as well, despite some suggestions from you otherwise.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't want to use bitcoins because

1. I find it too fishy that the creator(s) want to hide their identity.

2. The "mining" part is weird also. I am not motivated to make people hoarding bitcoins rich.

3. I'm not a criminal.

I did not feel this way about other new technologies but I have to trust my spidey sense on this one.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Looks like it is really easy for someone who hold enough bitcoins to manipulate the prices. I hope the FBI is collecting a lot of evidence.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting, just stumbled on this when looking for another Bitcoin related link, it looks like someone might have figured out a way to not only speed up the mining of Bitcoins, but also make it MORE efficient as the difficulty increases, rather than less as it was designed. I don't pretend to understand the math, and there is a lot of code / technical talk at the following link, but sounds like the author is using the same kind of method that would be used to analyze any cryptographic hash.

Of note, the author doesn't claim that it would be faster than current brute force mining attacks, at least not at first. But he does go on to say that once optimized, it could be faster:

A couple of benchmarks demonstrated that already with simple parameter tuning dramatic speed ups can be achieved. Additionally, I explored the contentious claim that the algorithm might get more efficient with increasing bitcoin difficulty. Initial tests showed that block 218430 with considerably higher difficulty is solved more efficiently than the genesis block 0 for a given nonce range.
http://jheusser.github.io/2013/02/03/satcoin.html

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have a dumb question. Governments and central banks control interest rates by changing money supply. How would they do it with bitcoins?

 
Oh, and if you want to make some money with

I have a dumb question. Governments and central banks control interest rates by changing money supply. How would they do it with bitcoins?
That part I get - they wouldn't. That is part of the attraction many have for Bitcoin, is that it is not (in theory) able to be controlled by Governments or Central Banks.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a little disconcerting, being that this needs to be used by people (i.e. not bots) to really become popular. Makes me wonder if these bots are used for, well, automating the trading of coins like DrJ is suggesting, or if they are solely used for arbitraging coins between platforms? (Benjamin appears to only support MtGox at the moment, but it's brand new, I believe).

But yah, because this currency is digital, it becomes really easy to build a bot that can be faster than any human could be in response to market trends, if nothing else. Worried about your Bitcoin collection? Just enter the price to sell and buy at and how much fluctuation on either side you'll allow (so that your prices can rise/fall with the market a bit).

https://github.com/mathisonian/benjamin

Benjamin is designed to be an easy to use bitcoin trading bot that does all of the tedious work for you. Benjamin does all of the tedious work, you just write a plug-and-play strategy for how to trade.
or this:

https://github.com/maxme/bitcoin-arbitrage

It gets order books from supported exchanges and calculate arbitrage opportunities between each markets. It takes market depth into account.
 
This is a little disconcerting, being that this needs to be used by people (i.e. not bots) to really become popular. Makes me wonder if these bots are used for, well, automating the trading of coins like DrJ is suggesting, or if they are solely used for arbitraging coins between platforms? (Benjamin appears to only support MtGox at the moment, but it's brand new, I believe).

But yah, because this currency is digital, it becomes really easy to build a bot that can be faster than any human could be in response to market trends, if nothing else. Worried about your Bitcoin collection? Just enter the price to sell and buy at and how much fluctuation on either side you'll allow (so that your prices can rise/fall with the market a bit).

https://github.com/mathisonian/benjamin

Benjamin is designed to be an easy to use bitcoin trading bot that does all of the tedious work for you. Benjamin does all of the tedious work, you just write a plug-and-play strategy for how to trade.
or this:

https://github.com/maxme/bitcoin-arbitrage

It gets order books from supported exchanges and calculate arbitrage opportunities between each markets. It takes market depth into account.
This sort of thing is used in our stock market today as well, so the best thing to do if you actually believe in something is basically to buy it and forget you have it for a long time - you're not going to beat these computers in day trading: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/high-frequency-trading-danger-risk-wall-streetPeople with more resources than you will always go to great lengths to beat the system and rip you off.

Where it becomes especially problematic with bitcoin is that a small number of entities also control such a large share and have huge ability to manipulate the market directly.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bitcoin needs miners to provide hardware to process transactions. Even IF the price eventually stablizes, how long will it take before it becomes unprofitable to be a miner? Can someone help with the math? Thanks.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bitcoin needs miners to provide hardware to process transactions. Even IF the price eventually stablizes, how long will it take before it becomes unprofitable to be a miner? Can someone help with the math? Thanks.
Even the creators themselves can't answer this. Coins get released at pretty much predetermined intervals, and this reduces over time. (X in the first 4 years, 1/2 X in the second 4 years, 1/4 X in the next 4, 1/8 X in the next 4, until a max of 21 million is reached) This rate coins are released doesn't depend on how much effort is being put into mining. If a million people put effort into mining, 10 million, 1 billion it doesn't matter. There's still the same number of coins released, they all just get less of them. So the more computing power and electricity thrown at it, the difficulty of getting them increases, and the less coins you get for each piece of hardware and electricity thrown at it. And this keep increasing over time. If I buy Y hardware today, it will make Y coins at today's difficulty. But this will diminish over time as more people throw hardware at it, along with diminishing due to an ever decreasing number of coins being released per interval. Tomorrow it might be half of Y, or a quarter of Y. No one really knows, because it depends on how much how much much competition you have.

Right now the power is increasing exponentially. But...as long as the coins continue to increase in value exponentially

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bitcoin needs miners to provide hardware to process transactions. Even IF the price eventually stablizes, how long will it take before it becomes unprofitable to be a miner? Can someone help with the math? Thanks.
Even the creators themselves can't answer this. Coins get released at pretty much predetermined intervals, and this reduces over time. (X in the first 4 years, 1/2 X in the second 4 years, 1/4 X in the next 4, 1/8 X in the next 4, until a max of 21 million is reached) This rate coins are released doesn't depend on how much effort is being put into mining. If a million people put effort into mining, 10 million, 1 billion it doesn't matter. There's still the same number of coins released, they all just get less of them. So the more computing power and electricity thrown at it, the difficulty of getting them increases, and the less coins you get for each piece of hardware and electricity thrown at it. And this keep increasing over time. If I buy Y hardware today, it will make Y coins at today's difficulty. But this will diminish over time as more people throw hardware at it, along with diminishing due to an ever decreasing number of coins being released per interval. Tomorrow it might be half of Y, or a quarter of Y. No one really knows, because it depends on how much how much much competition you have.

Right now the power is increasing exponentially. But...as long as the coins continue to increase in value exponentially...
That's assuming that people have to continue using brute force methodology to mine them. Someone figures out a better algorithm for mining (see my earlier post about SATCoin), and all bets are off.

 
Bitcoin needs miners to provide hardware to process transactions. Even IF the price eventually stablizes, how long will it take before it becomes unprofitable to be a miner? Can someone help with the math? Thanks.
Even the creators themselves can't answer this. Coins get released at pretty much predetermined intervals, and this reduces over time. (X in the first 4 years, 1/2 X in the second 4 years, 1/4 X in the next 4, 1/8 X in the next 4, until a max of 21 million is reached) This rate coins are released doesn't depend on how much effort is being put into mining. If a million people put effort into mining, 10 million, 1 billion it doesn't matter. There's still the same number of coins released, they all just get less of them. So the more computing power and electricity thrown at it, the difficulty of getting them increases, and the less coins you get for each piece of hardware and electricity thrown at it. And this keep increasing over time. If I buy Y hardware today, it will make Y coins at today's difficulty. But this will diminish over time as more people throw hardware at it, along with diminishing due to an ever decreasing number of coins being released per interval. Tomorrow it might be half of Y, or a quarter of Y. No one really knows, because it depends on how much how much much competition you have.

Right now the power is increasing exponentially. But...as long as the coins continue to increase in value exponentially...
That's assuming that people have to continue using brute force methodology to mine them. Someone figures out a better algorithm for mining (see my earlier post about SATCoin), and all bets are off.
Yeah, I want to take a closer look at that one. This kind of touches on a lot of the concerns I had several pages ago. Right now people are saying that ASIC is the end of the line, but something like that could take the whole competition to yet another level still.

To me this is one of the challenges of making a currency based on technology as a whole. It's built with certain assumptions in mind based on the technology standards of the day, but those assumptions can be quickly invalidated. Especially if there's enough interest in doing so. Hard currency has stood the test of time, it's pretty danged unlikely that will be the case with something like this. Some of their assumptions have already proven to be short sighted which has resulted in a number of attacks already - with even a small amount at stake.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also, nice finds on those Maelstrom. I'm definitely going to take a closer look at those links a little later when I have some more time.

 
Even looking at some of the basic principles of cryptography itself (I really only know the basics). Any encryption scheme can be broken, period, end of story. The main idea is that if you make it strong enough it will take so much time and effort to do so that by the time it's broken the information is essentially useless. The more valuable the information in question though, the more effort someone is willing to put towards it, and this starts to break down.

This is what Hal Finney was basically referring to in that quote when he put out the SSL encryption break challenge in 1996. He managed to get some hackers to break the encryption scheme, but it took so much time and effort that he didn't consider it to be that great of a risk. No one was going to put that much effort into doing so with the little bit that was at stake on the internet in 1996. But he knew that this would change as the internet became a more target rich environment.

Once there's enough interest in destroying this system - someone will put enough effort and resources into doing so. It's almost certain.

 
Bitcoin needs miners to provide hardware to process transactions. Even IF the price eventually stablizes, how long will it take before it becomes unprofitable to be a miner? Can someone help with the math? Thanks.
Even the creators themselves can't answer this. Coins get released at pretty much predetermined intervals, and this reduces over time. (X in the first 4 years, 1/2 X in the second 4 years, 1/4 X in the next 4, 1/8 X in the next 4, until a max of 21 million is reached) This rate coins are released doesn't depend on how much effort is being put into mining. If a million people put effort into mining, 10 million, 1 billion it doesn't matter. There's still the same number of coins released, they all just get less of them. So the more computing power and electricity thrown at it, the difficulty of getting them increases, and the less coins you get for each piece of hardware and electricity thrown at it. And this keep increasing over time. If I buy Y hardware today, it will make Y coins at today's difficulty. But this will diminish over time as more people throw hardware at it, along with diminishing due to an ever decreasing number of coins being released per interval. Tomorrow it might be half of Y, or a quarter of Y. No one really knows, because it depends on how much how much much competition you have.Right now the power is increasing exponentially. But...as long as the coins continue to increase in value exponentially...
That's assuming that people have to continue using brute force methodology to mine them. Someone figures out a better algorithm for mining (see my earlier post about SATCoin), and all bets are off.
Yeah, I want to take a closer look at that one. This kind of touches on a lot of the concerns I had several pages ago. Right now people are saying that ASIC is the end of the line, but something like that could take the whole competition to yet another level still.

To me this is one of the challenges of making a currency based on technology as a whole. It's built with certain assumptions in mind based on the technology standards of the day, but those assumptions can be quickly invalidated. Especially if there's enough interest in doing so. Hard currency has stood the test of time, it's pretty danged unlikely that will be the case with something like this. Some of their assumptions have already proven to be short sighted which has resulted in a number of attacks already - with even a small amount at stake.
Yes, it is hard to come up with a fool proof system but who will fix the problems if we don't even know who created it? It did not take long for people to figure out it's easier to steal than mine the bitcoins. BTW, is that even illegal?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Even looking at some of the basic principles of cryptography itself (I really only know the basics). Any encryption scheme can be broken, period, end of story. The main idea is that if you make it strong enough it will take so much time and effort to do so that by the time it's broken the information is essentially useless. The more valuable the information in question though, the more effort someone is willing to put towards it, and this starts to break down.

This is what Hal Finney was basically referring to in that quote when he put out the SSL encryption break challenge in 1996. He managed to get some hackers to break the encryption scheme, but it took so much time and effort that he didn't consider it to be that great of a risk. No one was going to put that much effort into doing so with the little bit that was at stake on the internet in 1996. But he knew that this would change as the internet became a more target rich environment.

Once there's enough interest in destroying this system - someone will put enough effort and resources into doing so. It's almost certain.
I do not poo poo the general idea of electronic currency. Bitcoins certainly got me thinking about how it can be more successful.

 
Even looking at some of the basic principles of cryptography itself (I really only know the basics). Any encryption scheme can be broken, period, end of story. The main idea is that if you make it strong enough it will take so much time and effort to do so that by the time it's broken the information is essentially useless. The more valuable the information in question though, the more effort someone is willing to put towards it, and this starts to break down.

This is what Hal Finney was basically referring to in that quote when he put out the SSL encryption break challenge in 1996. He managed to get some hackers to break the encryption scheme, but it took so much time and effort that he didn't consider it to be that great of a risk. No one was going to put that much effort into doing so with the little bit that was at stake on the internet in 1996. But he knew that this would change as the internet became a more target rich environment.

Once there's enough interest in destroying this system - someone will put enough effort and resources into doing so. It's almost certain.
I do not poo poo the general idea of electronic currency. Bitcoins certainly got me thinking about how it can be more successful.
I don't either, I'm just trying to figure out how plausible the idea really is long term and what some of the upcoming challenges would be.

And this is something that you are warned against when you're securing your stuff - which you are entirely responsible for yourself. The deal with AES-256 is that essentially this is the encryption scheme that all of the wallets use. So let's say that you follow their awesome 13 step process to secure your wallet, that you must follow EXACTLY in those steps or your wallet isn't safe (and still isn't safe from all threats). And you go ahead and you store your wallet on some cloud storage, like they offer as a potential possibility. And then someone breaks AES-256 encryption and has access for some period of time to every single wallet stored on some (or maybe even several) cloud storage providers. Now - maybe you stored it somewhere that didn't get hacked. Hopefully you the end user were following this 13 step procedure every so often. If not, you the end user must get your wallet to a new version of the client with a better encryption scheme ASAP (following the 13 step process EXACTLY in those same steps again) or your wallet may be vulnerable.

Now, this is something that you only really pull off once. You may make a rather gigantic score on your first run, and catch stragglers over time that don't know what an encryption scheme is. But it could be a really serious issue that would essentially devastate much of the public trust overnight.

Beware that even savings wallets have limited lifetimes. New, backwards incompatible versions of bitcoin might come out in future, AES might be broken, bit rot might destroy your wallets, etc. Update to fresh savings wallets every couple of years, or as needed.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/How_to_set_up_a_secure_offline_savings_wallet

This is a list of major heists, thefts, hacks, scams, and losses:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=83794.0

And this is what's happened with them only being worth a really small amount. As it rises, the interest in ripping people off gets significantly greater.

 
Btw, for anyone who hasn't spent any time researching Bitcoins, a really great basic introduction was done on the Security Now podcast some time ago (this was in 2011, for context). Steve is pretty great at taking very complex technical topics and explaining them in a way pretty much anyone can understand. He has 50 Bitcoins that he mined early on, I think he had his machine on for 24 or 48 hours just messing around learning about the currency. He is, in general, quite a fan of Bitcoin, although he does caution people about the security risks of storing them online, etc. They talk about Bitcoins from time to time on the podcast, basically anytime there is news.

Anyways, the intro episode: https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-287.htm

Oh, and the one thing I've never really questioned is the brute force strength of the crypto behind Bitcoin, again from Security Now (more recent, just a few weeks ago), but not specifically about Bitcoin except that Bitcoin also uses SHA256 with 256 bits)

https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-430.htm

Steve: Yes. Now, this is where I wanted to talk about 256 bits. It unnerves people, the idea that BitTorrent Sync has for your address a randomly chosen 256-bit token, and that's your identity. That's what I'm using, as I mentioned before, for the user's identity on SQRL, my proposed login replacement. That's what Bitcoin uses as your identifier for Bitcoin. That's your unique thing. And so people say, yeah, but what if there's a collision? What if I get the same one? Then I'm going to have access to all of those files of the other person who has the same one. And it's like, okay.

So that's true, first of all, absolutely true. If two people share the same, exactly the same, not one single bit different, exactly the same 256 bits, then for all intents and purposes, for BitTorrent Sync, for Bitcoin and for SQRL and anything else using 256 bits, you're the same person. There's a collision. So this is the so-called "birthday attack." The point of a birthday attack is it asks the question, in a population of people having some number of possibilities, what's the chance, the probability that any two of them share the same birthday? If we're in the case of birthdays, with 365 days in the year, what's the chance of a birthday collision? In the larger case, in the case we're discussing with 256 bits, that's a lot. There's a lot of possibilities. So the question is, what's the chance of a collision? And I want to, for all time, we're now going to coin some standards here so that we put this issue to rest.

Okay. So there is a - the actual math, the statistics, is amazingly complex. Wolfram has a page with equations you can't even believe that, like, works to explain, to give you an exact value for this. But a useful approximation of the probability of a collision is n^2, "n" where that's the number of people, the number of accounts, the number of - like the number of people in the pool. So that number squared over 2 to the number of bits plus one. So like 256 bits plus one, 257. So the number of people squared, divided by 2^257, would apply. And this is true so long as the number of people in the pool, the number that we're checking for collision, is very much smaller than 2 raised to the power of half the number of bits, or 2^128. Well, since 2^128 is really, another one of these really huge powers, yes, "n" for reasonable numbers, like a billion people or seven billion people on the planet, for example, very much smaller. So that inequality is satisfied easily.

Okay. So plugging this in, plugging these numbers into this equation for a population of a billion users. So we have a billion BitTorrent Sync users - obviously we're never going to have that many. But say, just for the sake of argument, a billion. Or a billion bitcoin users, one tenth the population of the planet are using bitcoin. Or a billion SQRL login users. A reasonable number. Okay. A billion. The chance of a collision is one in 4.3 times 10^60. One in 4.3 times 10^60.

Now, the problem, okay, that's a very big number. Very, very low probability of collision. But not zero. Okay. Well, so we need to get - I want to develop a sense of scale for how small the chances are and how much concern we should give this. Okay. So let's compare this to something that we can get behind. And that is an extinction-level event caused by a major meteor strike on the Earth.

Leo: Okay.

Steve: Okay?

Leo: Yeah.

Steve: One of those, an ELE, an ELE, an Extinction-Level Event, is estimated to occur, on average, about once every 30 million years. Okay, so that's how often it's going to happen, once every 30 million years. Now, what that means is the chance of it happening within the next second, okay, there went one. Whoa. There went another one. Oh. There went a third. Okay. The chance of it happening, of an extinction-level event, of this question no longer being relevant to us because we're all gone.

Leo: Or the weather's really crappy, yeah.

Steve: One in 10^15.

Leo: Okay.

Steve: One every second. One in 10^15 chance that we no longer have this as a concern because we're gone. Okay? A meteor struck the Earth.

Leo: Right.

Steve: That is 10^45 times more likely to happen than a collision between any two people with a billion users of Bitcoin, BitTorrent Sync, or SQRL. 10^45 is a trillion trillion trillion billion. So every second that goes by there's a one in 10^15 chance that we're all obliterated. Oop, there went another couple seconds.

Leo: Yeah, but Steve...

Steve: Every single...

Leo: It could happen. But Steve. It could happen.

Steve: It actually couldn't. It actually cannot.

Leo: No, it could happen, though.

Steve: It actually cannot happen.

Leo: And I can win the lottery tomorrow.

Steve: There's a trillion trillion trillion billion times more likely that in the next second we will all cease to exist, and this will be the last thing on our minds. This will be a problem, I mean, believe me, whether your bitcoin wallet is full or not, it's not what you're worrying about.
 
Bitcoin needs miners to provide hardware to process transactions. Even IF the price eventually stablizes, how long will it take before it becomes unprofitable to be a miner? Can someone help with the math? Thanks.
Even the creators themselves can't answer this. Coins get released at pretty much predetermined intervals, and this reduces over time. (X in the first 4 years, 1/2 X in the second 4 years, 1/4 X in the next 4, 1/8 X in the next 4, until a max of 21 million is reached) This rate coins are released doesn't depend on how much effort is being put into mining. If a million people put effort into mining, 10 million, 1 billion it doesn't matter. There's still the same number of coins released, they all just get less of them. So the more computing power and electricity thrown at it, the difficulty of getting them increases, and the less coins you get for each piece of hardware and electricity thrown at it. And this keep increasing over time. If I buy Y hardware today, it will make Y coins at today's difficulty. But this will diminish over time as more people throw hardware at it, along with diminishing due to an ever decreasing number of coins being released per interval. Tomorrow it might be half of Y, or a quarter of Y. No one really knows, because it depends on how much how much much competition you have.Right now the power is increasing exponentially. But...as long as the coins continue to increase in value exponentially...
That's assuming that people have to continue using brute force methodology to mine them. Someone figures out a better algorithm for mining (see my earlier post about SATCoin), and all bets are off.
Yeah, I want to take a closer look at that one. This kind of touches on a lot of the concerns I had several pages ago. Right now people are saying that ASIC is the end of the line, but something like that could take the whole competition to yet another level still.

To me this is one of the challenges of making a currency based on technology as a whole. It's built with certain assumptions in mind based on the technology standards of the day, but those assumptions can be quickly invalidated. Especially if there's enough interest in doing so. Hard currency has stood the test of time, it's pretty danged unlikely that will be the case with something like this. Some of their assumptions have already proven to be short sighted which has resulted in a number of attacks already - with even a small amount at stake.
Yes, it is hard to come up with a fool proof system but who will fix the problems if we don't even know who created it? It did not take long for people to figure out it's easier to steal than mine the bitcoins. BTW, is that even illegal?
Well, I don't think it's technically legal to steal bitcoins. But it's not exactly easy to figure out what happened after the fact either with laundering services being out there I guess. (And the ability to manually launder them to an extent). That's one of the things it looks like Silk Road was doing from that interview piece - they had a laundering service built into the whole thing. Probably something along the lines of what the stuff the RSA guys saw, except not so stupid and obvious looking - you pass the coins through a bunch of accounts in little splits and merge them back together and it's nearly impossible to tell whose coins were whose and what was for what.

 
Btw, for anyone who hasn't spent any time researching Bitcoins, a really great basic introduction was done on the Security Now podcast some time ago (this was in 2011, for context). Steve is pretty great at taking very complex technical topics and explaining them in a way pretty much anyone can understand. He has 50 Bitcoins that he mined early on, I think he had his machine on for 24 or 48 hours just messing around learning about the currency. He is, in general, quite a fan of Bitcoin, although he does caution people about the security risks of storing them online, etc. They talk about Bitcoins from time to time on the podcast, basically anytime there is news.

Anyways, the intro episode: https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-287.htm

Oh, and the one thing I've never really questioned is the brute force strength of the crypto behind Bitcoin, again from Security Now (more recent, just a few weeks ago), but not specifically about Bitcoin except that Bitcoin also uses SHA256 with 256 bits)

https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-430.htm

Steve: Yes. Now, this is where I wanted to talk about 256 bits. It unnerves people, the idea that BitTorrent Sync has for your address a randomly chosen 256-bit token, and that's your identity. That's what I'm using, as I mentioned before, for the user's identity on SQRL, my proposed login replacement. That's what Bitcoin uses as your identifier for Bitcoin. That's your unique thing. And so people say, yeah, but what if there's a collision? What if I get the same one? Then I'm going to have access to all of those files of the other person who has the same one. And it's like, okay.So that's true, first of all, absolutely true. If two people share the same, exactly the same, not one single bit different, exactly the same 256 bits, then for all intents and purposes, for BitTorrent Sync, for Bitcoin and for SQRL and anything else using 256 bits, you're the same person. There's a collision. So this is the so-called "birthday attack." The point of a birthday attack is it asks the question, in a population of people having some number of possibilities, what's the chance, the probability that any two of them share the same birthday? If we're in the case of birthdays, with 365 days in the year, what's the chance of a birthday collision? In the larger case, in the case we're discussing with 256 bits, that's a lot. There's a lot of possibilities. So the question is, what's the chance of a collision? And I want to, for all time, we're now going to coin some standards here so that we put this issue to rest.

Okay. So there is a - the actual math, the statistics, is amazingly complex. Wolfram has a page with equations you can't even believe that, like, works to explain, to give you an exact value for this. But a useful approximation of the probability of a collision is n^2, "n" where that's the number of people, the number of accounts, the number of - like the number of people in the pool. So that number squared over 2 to the number of bits plus one. So like 256 bits plus one, 257. So the number of people squared, divided by 2^257, would apply. And this is true so long as the number of people in the pool, the number that we're checking for collision, is very much smaller than 2 raised to the power of half the number of bits, or 2^128. Well, since 2^128 is really, another one of these really huge powers, yes, "n" for reasonable numbers, like a billion people or seven billion people on the planet, for example, very much smaller. So that inequality is satisfied easily.

Okay. So plugging this in, plugging these numbers into this equation for a population of a billion users. So we have a billion BitTorrent Sync users - obviously we're never going to have that many. But say, just for the sake of argument, a billion. Or a billion bitcoin users, one tenth the population of the planet are using bitcoin. Or a billion SQRL login users. A reasonable number. Okay. A billion. The chance of a collision is one in 4.3 times 10^60. One in 4.3 times 10^60.

Now, the problem, okay, that's a very big number. Very, very low probability of collision. But not zero. Okay. Well, so we need to get - I want to develop a sense of scale for how small the chances are and how much concern we should give this. Okay. So let's compare this to something that we can get behind. And that is an extinction-level event caused by a major meteor strike on the Earth.

Leo: Okay.

Steve: Okay?

Leo: Yeah.

Steve: One of those, an ELE, an ELE, an Extinction-Level Event, is estimated to occur, on average, about once every 30 million years. Okay, so that's how often it's going to happen, once every 30 million years. Now, what that means is the chance of it happening within the next second, okay, there went one. Whoa. There went another one. Oh. There went a third. Okay. The chance of it happening, of an extinction-level event, of this question no longer being relevant to us because we're all gone.

Leo: Or the weather's really crappy, yeah.

Steve: One in 10^15.

Leo: Okay.

Steve: One every second. One in 10^15 chance that we no longer have this as a concern because we're gone. Okay? A meteor struck the Earth.

Leo: Right.

Steve: That is 10^45 times more likely to happen than a collision between any two people with a billion users of Bitcoin, BitTorrent Sync, or SQRL. 10^45 is a trillion trillion trillion billion. So every second that goes by there's a one in 10^15 chance that we're all obliterated. Oop, there went another couple seconds.

Leo: Yeah, but Steve...

Steve: Every single...

Leo: It could happen. But Steve. It could happen.

Steve: It actually couldn't. It actually cannot.

Leo: No, it could happen, though.

Steve: It actually cannot happen.

Leo: And I can win the lottery tomorrow.

Steve: There's a trillion trillion trillion billion times more likely that in the next second we will all cease to exist, and this will be the last thing on our minds. This will be a problem, I mean, believe me, whether your bitcoin wallet is full or not, it's not what you're worrying about.
:lmao:

 
...snip...

Beware that even savings wallets have limited lifetimes. New, backwards incompatible versions of bitcoin might come out in future, AES might be broken, bit rot might destroy your wallets, etc. Update to fresh savings wallets every couple of years, or as needed.
Pretty sure Bitcoin uses SHA256, not AES256. The difference is one does hashing, which is non-reversable (SHA256) whereas the other does encryption, can be decrypted (AES256). You can find the value stored in a SHA by hashing values against the private key if you have/crack the private key, but having the private key does not allow you to know the value stored, you would still need to figure that out. Whereas with AES, once you have the private key, you could decrypt the value from the encrypted string.

edit: oops, and I realize here you are talking about the encryption on the wallets, not the hashing for the Bitcoins themselves. Nevermind me...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
...snip...

Beware that even savings wallets have limited lifetimes. New, backwards incompatible versions of bitcoin might come out in future, AES might be broken, bit rot might destroy your wallets, etc. Update to fresh savings wallets every couple of years, or as needed.
Pretty sure Bitcoin uses SHA256, not AES256. The difference is one does hashing, which is non-reversable (SHA256) whereas the other does encryption, can be decrypted (AES256). You can find the value stored in a SHA by hashing values against the private key if you have/crack the private key, but having the private key does not allow you to know the value stored, you would still need to figure that out. Whereas with AES, once you have the private key, you could decrypt the value from the encrypted string.
When you encrypt the wallet.dat that holds your entire bitcoin life savings, it's being encrypted with AES-256.

 
...snip...

Beware that even savings wallets have limited lifetimes. New, backwards incompatible versions of bitcoin might come out in future, AES might be broken, bit rot might destroy your wallets, etc. Update to fresh savings wallets every couple of years, or as needed.
Pretty sure Bitcoin uses SHA256, not AES256. The difference is one does hashing, which is non-reversable (SHA256) whereas the other does encryption, can be decrypted (AES256). You can find the value stored in a SHA by hashing values against the private key if you have/crack the private key, but having the private key does not allow you to know the value stored, you would still need to figure that out. Whereas with AES, once you have the private key, you could decrypt the value from the encrypted string.
When you encrypt the wallet.dat that holds your entire bitcoin life savings, it's being encrypted with AES-256.
Yup, realized I misread that just after I posted it, edited my post.

 
Interesting, just stumbled on this when looking for another Bitcoin related link, it looks like someone might have figured out a way to not only speed up the mining of Bitcoins, but also make it MORE efficient as the difficulty increases, rather than less as it was designed. I don't pretend to understand the math, and there is a lot of code / technical talk at the following link, but sounds like the author is using the same kind of method that would be used to analyze any cryptographic hash.

Of note, the author doesn't claim that it would be faster than current brute force mining attacks, at least not at first. But he does go on to say that once optimized, it could be faster:

A couple of benchmarks demonstrated that already with simple parameter tuning dramatic speed ups can be achieved. Additionally, I explored the contentious claim that the algorithm might get more efficient with increasing bitcoin difficulty. Initial tests showed that block 218430 with considerably higher difficulty is solved more efficiently than the genesis block 0 for a given nonce range.
http://jheusser.github.io/2013/02/03/satcoin.html
The strategy described in this link from ~10 months ago is faster on CPUs, but nobody uses CPUs anymore - it doesn't offer speed improvements over GPUs nor ASICs.

 
Andreas Antonopoulos' talk on bitcoin: DISRUPT

Text summary:

Bitcoin is one of the most important inventions of the last 20 years. Unless you are a computer scientist, you may not know that the concept of a decentralized network that could achieve consensus (agreement) without any central controlling authority was an unresolved problem in computer science called Byzantine Generals' Problem. Bitcoin solved this problem in 2008 and that in itself is truly revolutionary.

Bitcoin developer Andreas Antonopoulos said "I discovered Bitcoin for the first time in 2011 and, since the Internet, I have not felt this feeling of being completely overwhelmed by the possibilities that I saw. I was there at the dawn of the Internet in 1991 when it was pre-commercial. And I could see that this was going to change the world but couldn't tell everyone around me because no one believed me. And I have that exact same feeling about Bitcoin."

Ignore the price. Ignore Bitcoin the money and understand Bitcoin the technology, the invention, and the network it creates. Because if we mess up the money we'll just reboot another currency. The invention of Bitcoin, the technology that makes it possible, cannot be un-invented. And it creates the possibility for decentralized organization on a scale never before seen on this planet.

Today in the world approximately 1 billion people have access to banking, credit and international finance capabilities. Primarily the upper classes and the western nations. 6 and a half billion people on this planet have no connection to the world of money. They operate in cash based societies with very little access to any international resources. They don't use banks. 2 billion of these people are already on the Internet. And with a simple application download, they can immediately become participants in an international economy using an international currency that can be transmitted anywhere with no fees and no government controls. And they can connect to a world of international finance that is completely peer to peer. So Bitcoin is the money of the people. At its core Bitcoin is simple mathematical rules that everyone agrees on with no controls. The possibility of bringing 6.5 billion into productive society by connecting them to the rest of the world is truly revolutionary.

First we're going to start affecting the payment processors; these enormous companies that make it more expensive to send money the poorer the destination country is. A situation that is exploitative and corrupt. And these organizations make enormous amounts of profit for a function that can be done in Bitcoin for free! So, as the adage of the Internet once went, "I just replaced your entire industry with 100 lines of Python code." And that is the case with Bitcoin.

One of the most important principles of the Internet is neutrality. The Internet doesn't know the difference between CNN and an Egyptian blogger. Likewise Bitcoin is neutral to sender and recipient and also to the value of the transaction. And it also gives every citizen and user of Bitcoin the same ability to innovate in terms of financial innovation, in terms of payment systems and use the currency with exactly the same facility that a bank has. YOU can become and operate on the same level as Citibank.

It takes a hierarchical system of international finance that up to now has achieved security by limiting access (since that is the main system of trust on our payment systems; you can't get in unless you're vetted) and it turns that on its head and creates a completely flat and decentralized network where every node is equal and the protocol is neutral to any and all transactions. And pushes innovation to the edge of the network. This allows the same phenomenon we saw on the Internet: Innovation without permission. You don't need to ask anyone if your application can be published on the Internet. You don't need to ask anyone to completely subvert a new industry with your information technology. With Bitcoin you don't need to ask anyone to invent a new financial instrument, a new payment system or a new service. You can just do it. You can write the code and you are now part of an international financial network that can run that code and put you in contact with millions of consumers.

It's still early days. We do not yet have the polished interfaces. It's difficult to use. It's used by criminals. It's not exactly easy to see who is using Bitcoin. We've heard all of that before. The Internet circa 1991 was a den of thieves, pirates, pornographers and criminals. Right? But it didn't matter. And it doesn't matter now. And the reason it doesn't matter is because the same power of the technology that can be used by a criminal to promote their criminal activities can be used by all of the rest of us to do good; to do incredible things all across the world. And there is more of us than them.

Bitcoin creates this environment that is ripe for innovation. Because its not just a currency. It's a technology, a network, and a currency. Yes the value has substantially increased over time but we shouldn't focus on the price. If Bitcoin crashed tomorrow morning the technology is still revolutionary. Just like if a website fails on the Internet or an application fails on the Internet, the Internet doesn't go away. So if you understand that Bitcoin is a technology and not a currency you can grasp the importance it has. Yet it should not be about us. It is about the other 6.5 billion people on this planet. It is about the ability to bring to the world a level of financial innovation it has never seen before. It's bigger than a price. Bitcoin can and will change lives.

It's not going to be easy. When you throw a disruptive technology into the middle of the most powerful institutions on the planet - they don't like it. And right now we're still in the early stages. To use the trite expression "first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win". We're still at the laughing at us stage. And that's quite alright :) Because by the time they get to fighting us they've already lost. Because this technology just went global. There are 193 currencies in the world yet there is now a new international currency; a mathematical decentralized cryptocurrency called Bitcoin. And we're going to build more. Cryptocurrencies are going to be a mainstay of our financial future. They are going to be part of the future of this planet because they have been invented and it's as simple as that. You cannot un-invent it just as you cannot turn an omelette back into eggs. There are many other alt coins out there that use the same basic technology. Bitcoin is the Internet of money and currency is only the first application. At its core Bitcoin is a revolutionary technology that will change the world forever.

A special thanks to Andreas Antonopoulos.

EDIT: Added link to video discussion that was transcribed (but not exact) which also covers other topics such as micropayments. You can also learn all about the protocol here at Khan Academy. More in-depth discussion with Andreas can be viewed here (beware of the background noise as it was recorded in a restaurant over a meal) and I also recommend this recent interview with TastyTrade covering more financial topics that also refers to the previous video ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, and that guy is one of the developers. Garzik from his interview: "Bitcoin may ultimately fail".

Sounds great. I'm not entirely against the idea, but I'll wait it out since you've already screwed up the money and price. Maybe the reboot will be better.

 
He tells you to ignore the price, that the currency aspect is "app #1" and that Bitcoin is a protocol, and what do you do? You do the opposite, shocking.

Another good quote, "Bitcoin is the internet of money"

 
Last edited by a moderator:
He tells you to ignore the price, that the currency aspect is "act I" and that Bitcoin is a protocol, and what do you do? You do the opposite, shocking.
No, I've praised many of the technical features that it has. It also has many deficiencies presently, as he notes. And he suggests the currency could need to be rebooted "if we mess up the money", and to me there's really no uncertainty that it's been messed up already.

 
He tells you to ignore the price, that the currency aspect is "act I" and that Bitcoin is a protocol, and what do you do? You do the opposite, shocking.
No, I've praised many of the technical features that it has. It also has many deficiencies presently, as he notes. And he suggests the currency could need to be rebooted "if we mess up the money", and to me there's really no uncertainty that it's been messed up already.
So short bitcoin and come back and tell us how rich you became.

Isn't that where the smart money's at? If the "bitcoin moguls" really want to profit off of bitcoin they would short it and then sell all of their bitcoins thereby driving the price into oblivion and they would get rich twice, right?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
He tells you to ignore the price, that the currency aspect is "act I" and that Bitcoin is a protocol, and what do you do? You do the opposite, shocking.
No, I've praised many of the technical features that it has. It also has many deficiencies presently, as he notes. And he suggests the currency could need to be rebooted "if we mess up the money", and to me there's really no uncertainty that it's been messed up already.
So short bitcoin and come back and tell us how rich you became.

Isn't that where the smart money's at? If the "bitcoin moguls" really want to profit off of bitcoin they would short it and then sell all of their bitcoins thereby driving the price into oblivion and they would get rich twice, right?
Hilarious. So I can deal with some company in Hong Kong with sketchy details or a guy in Ukraine? But first...

All of these places require that you open an account to start trading, and none of them take dollars. So you have to buy some bitcoins elsewhere, which in itself is no easy task, and transfer them to your ICBIT or MPEx account before you can get started.
 
And this has been one of my main criticisms jojo, ease of use. Andreas is comparing this to the internet itself, maybe not a terrible comparison. But that didn't revolutionize the world until it became easy for people to actually use it. It didn't do anything to make the average person's life better and no one actually made any money until that point. That didn't stop people from speculating and creating what in retrospect were some very predictable bubbles. And to this day, there's still people that don't have unrestricted access to it, or maybe even any access to it.

This can't be the currency of the people until the average person can actually use it. And it's nowhere near that point. It would collapse if people tried to use it like that. The meteoric rise has more to do with speculation then with people's ability to actually use this to make their lives better.

And then there's the fact that like 20 guys own almost all of it, and all of the misc problems associated with that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This kind of promise is why I am still interested in Bitcoin and watch/follow it. As a currency though, it seems to have some problems right now. The overall problem though, is right now all of the other potential uses (even in that talk) are predicated on it succeeding as a currency. How do you bring other people worldwide into the economy of Bitcoin if the currency (app #1) isn't there? It really seems to me that the currency is the driving force behind Bitcoin.

I don't agree that the price doesn't matter. That is what will be focused on, right or wrong, and the trust given to Bitcoin may well ride on the success of it as a currency.

 
Yep DrJ, everyone is against you making money, I don't know what to tell you - bitcoin is not going to be the get-rich-quick scam that you want it to be.
You realize he wasn't talking about him making money. He was talking about the economy of Bitcoin, the thing that Andreas wants to invite 2Billion (or 6.5Billion) people in to the network to participate in. If there is no economy there (i.e. no one is making money using Bitcoins), if it isn't easy to use, it won't be the currency of the people.

I am interested in the network affect of Bitcoin, but if I was going to try to make money with Bitcoin, it probably wouldn't be mining (too late for that anyways) or even purchasing them. It would be building a tool to allow people to use them. Basically, sell the equivalent of the shovels and blue jeans in the Gold Mining towns during the gold rush.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This kind of promise is why I am still interested in Bitcoin and watch/follow it. As a currency though, it seems to have some problems right now. The overall problem though, is right now all of the other potential uses (even in that talk) are predicated on it succeeding as a currency. How do you bring other people worldwide into the economy of Bitcoin if the currency (app #1) isn't there? It really seems to me that the currency is the driving force behind Bitcoin.

I don't agree that the price doesn't matter. That is what will be focused on, right or wrong, and the trust given to Bitcoin may well ride on the success of it as a currency.
I look it at as PayPal 2.0 that is decentralized, nobody cares about "paypal bucks" they just use the network to achieve their goals. Everybody hated paypal when it first came out, nobody trusted it, you tried paying people back in paypal and they would become irate because now they need to figure out how to use this newfangled technology. It was only until the paypal network grew to such an extent where it became more trusted and more people used it - a lot of people, myself included, still hate paypal but for different reasons.

You can say paypal is different since you know there is USD in your account, but do you really have full control of that USD? Hell no, paypal can freeze your account if it so chooses and this happens frequently.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yep DrJ, everyone is against you making money, I don't know what to tell you - bitcoin is not going to be the get-rich-quick scam that you want it to be.
Quite the opposite, the world seems pretty tailored to guys like myself making money and it's only getting better. It definitely doesn't appear that technology is going away any time soon.

As for bitcoin - it was a pretty effective get rich quick scheme for many. You should know this since you bumped this thread every time the price went up.

 
If there is no economy there (i.e. no one is making money using Bitcoins), if it isn't easy to use, it won't be the currency of the people.
Why does anyone need to "make money" using Bitcoins? This is the running theme in this thread. Did you read the link I posted about M-PESA and people sending money to their families in Africa? Watch the video you are commenting on, the poorer the nation the higher fees to send money to it. Bitcoin solves this problem today. People can send money via Bitcoin and their families back in Africa where they can spend it the same day to buy bread, they have no incentive to "hoard" bitcoin or make money off of it. Bitcoin brings currency back to the people.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can see the promise of this as a currency of the people. If a farmer in Africa can use Bitcoin to accept payment for his goat from his neighbor, that could generate a whole new economic growth in that part of the world, not to mention in many others where people don't have the same access to banking we do here in the US.

But the currency HAS to be stable for that. A farmer isn't going to trust in the .025BC he gets from the buyer if he has to have a bank (he doesn't) to convert it his local currency immediately cause he is worried it will go down. And the buyer isn't going to give up .025BC for a goat if he is worried it will go up if he waits a day or two, he'll just hold onto the BC.

 
I can see the promise of this as a currency of the people. If a farmer in Africa can use Bitcoin to accept payment for his goat from his neighbor, that could generate a whole new economic growth in that part of the world, not to mention in many others where people don't have the same access to banking we do here in the US.

But the currency HAS to be stable for that. A farmer isn't going to trust in the .025BC he gets from the buyer if he has to have a bank (he doesn't) to convert it his local currency immediately cause he is worried it will go down. And the buyer isn't going to give up .025BC for a goat if he is worried it will go up if he waits a day or two, he'll just hold onto the BC.
And he probably doesn't want to have to learn how to boot Ubuntu Live, bust out a USB stick, recite a poem, send his wallet to 6 other goat herders...

 
If there is no economy there (i.e. no one is making money using Bitcoins), if it isn't easy to use, it won't be the currency of the people.
Why does anyone need to "make money" using Bitcoins? This is the running theme in this thread. Did you read the link I posted about M-PESA and people sending money to their families in Africa? Watch the video you are commenting on, the poorer the nation the higher fees to send money to it. Bitcoin solves this problem today. People can send money via Bitcoin and their families back in Africa can spend it today to buy bread, they have no incentive to "hoard" bitcoin or make money off of it.
I think I might have answered this with my example about the goat. People need to be able to USE Bitcoin as money (if it isn't used, then it isn't going to help the poor in Africa cause they won't be able to do anything when their family sends it to them), and they are only going to do that if they think they can gain something by doing so. That has been simplified to "make money" using Bitcoin, I thought that was pretty clear, sorry if not.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If there is no economy there (i.e. no one is making money using Bitcoins), if it isn't easy to use, it won't be the currency of the people.
Why does anyone need to "make money" using Bitcoins? This is the running theme in this thread. Did you read the link I posted about M-PESA and people sending money to their families in Africa? Watch the video you are commenting on, the poorer the nation the higher fees to send money to it. Bitcoin solves this problem today. People can send money via Bitcoin and their families back in Africa can spend it today to buy bread, they have no incentive to "hoard" bitcoin or make money off of it.
I think I might have answered this with my example about the goat. People need to be able to USE Bitcoin as money (if it isn't used, then it isn't going to help the poor in Africa cause they won't be able to do anything when their family sends it to them), and they are only going to do that if they think they can gain something by doing so. That has been simplified to "make money" using Bitcoin, I thought that was pretty clear, sorry if not.
Do yourself a service and read the link I posted that references M-PESA, nobody needs to hold on to Bitcoin - they transfer it to their local currency immediately via phone applications. A very large percentage of people in Africa use their phones for internet so it is the logical medium to use for Bitcoin. I'm not even 100% certain they use bitcoin "over internet", but it would answer a lot of the concerns you are raising.

link for the lazy

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Read that paper BTW. I definitely don't understand quite a few of the more technical details either, but it does appear that this probably isn't going to give you the orders of magnitude that the ASIC would. One amusing thing I saw on the bitcoin forums is people talking about quantum computing and postulating that a single quantum computer could both mine all of the coins and take over the consensus. :)

Supposedly knowledge is doubling every 12 months these days, and will shrink down to 12 hours. So, a lot of things are possible on a really short scale that seem like science fiction today.

 
If there is no economy there (i.e. no one is making money using Bitcoins), if it isn't easy to use, it won't be the currency of the people.
Why does anyone need to "make money" using Bitcoins? This is the running theme in this thread. Did you read the link I posted about M-PESA and people sending money to their families in Africa? Watch the video you are commenting on, the poorer the nation the higher fees to send money to it. Bitcoin solves this problem today. People can send money via Bitcoin and their families back in Africa can spend it today to buy bread, they have no incentive to "hoard" bitcoin or make money off of it.
I think I might have answered this with my example about the goat. People need to be able to USE Bitcoin as money (if it isn't used, then it isn't going to help the poor in Africa cause they won't be able to do anything when their family sends it to them), and they are only going to do that if they think they can gain something by doing so. That has been simplified to "make money" using Bitcoin, I thought that was pretty clear, sorry if not.
Do yourself a service and read the link I posted that references M-PESA, nobody needs to hold on to Bitcoin - they transfer it to their local currency immediately via phone applications. A very large percentage of people in Africa use their phones for internet so it the logical medium to use for Bitcoin. I'm not even 100% certain they use bitcoin "over internet", but it would answer a lot of the concerns you are raising.
That is interesting. I posted a link I found talking about it, if you posted that I didn't see it earlier. It is interesting that users are currently using it but immediately transferring into/out of their local currency immediately upon the transaction. That does address my concern about usage due to volatility.

It looked pretty good, but then I saw that M-Pesa was not a Bitcoin network. It doesn't even allow Bitcoins to be transferred natively, it is only through a third party service that it is allowed (Kipochi). M-Pesa is just a mobile payment network, like Visa/Mastercard. This is my issue with a lot of what I see as hype around Bitcoins. It's like "oooh, so and so can do such and such and third party X accepts Bitcoins and can integrate with third party Y, so WOOOO".

The idea of a third party service that stores your assets in the local currency, then lets you buy Bitcoin and send it and then converts back into the currency of the recipient, all in one transaction, is a pretty good idea. And Kipochi might be trying to do that, at least it looks like that is their goal. But right now, it is just a mobile accessible online wallet. This may be the model for Bitcoin usage, and it helps me understand the "network" but not a "currency" explanations (I don't think that is the right way to describe that, as it is Bitcoin the currency that enables the financial transfer).

 
If there is no economy there (i.e. no one is making money using Bitcoins), if it isn't easy to use, it won't be the currency of the people.
Why does anyone need to "make money" using Bitcoins? This is the running theme in this thread. Did you read the link I posted about M-PESA and people sending money to their families in Africa? Watch the video you are commenting on, the poorer the nation the higher fees to send money to it. Bitcoin solves this problem today. People can send money via Bitcoin and their families back in Africa can spend it today to buy bread, they have no incentive to "hoard" bitcoin or make money off of it.
I think I might have answered this with my example about the goat. People need to be able to USE Bitcoin as money (if it isn't used, then it isn't going to help the poor in Africa cause they won't be able to do anything when their family sends it to them), and they are only going to do that if they think they can gain something by doing so. That has been simplified to "make money" using Bitcoin, I thought that was pretty clear, sorry if not.
Do yourself a service and read the link I posted that references M-PESA, nobody needs to hold on to Bitcoin - they transfer it to their local currency immediately via phone applications. A very large percentage of people in Africa use their phones for internet so it the logical medium to use for Bitcoin. I'm not even 100% certain they use bitcoin "over internet", but it would answer a lot of the concerns you are raising.
That is interesting. I posted a link I found talking about it, if you posted that I didn't see it earlier. It is interesting that users are currently using it but immediately transferring into/out of their local currency immediately upon the transaction. That does address my concern about usage due to volatility.

It looked pretty good, but then I saw that M-Pesa was not a Bitcoin network. It doesn't even allow Bitcoins to be transferred natively, it is only through a third party service that it is allowed (Kipochi). M-Pesa is just a mobile payment network, like Visa/Mastercard. This is my issue with a lot of what I see as hype around Bitcoins. It's like "oooh, so and so can do such and such and third party X accepts Bitcoins and can integrate with third party Y, so WOOOO".

The idea of a third party service that stores your assets in the local currency, then lets you buy Bitcoin and send it and then converts back into the currency of the recipient, all in one transaction, is a pretty good idea. And Kipochi might be trying to do that, at least it looks like that is their goal. But right now, it is just a mobile accessible online wallet. This may be the model for Bitcoin usage, and it helps me understand the "network" but not a "currency" explanations (I don't think that is the right way to describe that, as it is Bitcoin the currency that enables the financial transfer).
The Bitcoin network is one cog in the solution (currency transfer) and the part of the money flow that currently carries the steepest fees (upwards of 20% as quoted in the links).

It is not turnkey, but there's no reason why it couldn't be at some point, baby steps.

~20% fees of $372b transferred in 2012 from migrant workers back to their home countries accounts for $74.4b - that is a crap-ton of money.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top