Bitcoin Forum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQoykhNoBbY

Watched this for the second time. That guy has a habit of failing distinguishing between bugs and features. If you listen carefully most things he mentions as supposedly negative are actually positive for Bitcoin. In his Bitcoin part of talk about 80% of whatever he say is actually positive for Bitcoin, just delivered in a snide fashion.

Some huge "bugs" he mentioned are so not a big deal.

For example, his attack on scalability has as starting condition "if they operate VISA size network" and conclusion oh they would need to buy 1TB storage per week. Do you think VISA sized network could afford buying a few HDD's per day (even assuming that storage tech freezes forever now)?

In effect this is a hostile and qualified analysis that could not come up with anything more substantial than Ben's face in blockchain. This is the best he could come up with.

i don't think this was critical in the wrong ways.

he might be right about bitcoin supernodes becoming basically "Banks" once it scales (meaning, those are the points where the blockchain is stored and validated)

if I understood him correctly, he's also saying there is a problem with identity leakage when validating transactions, ie: the "connect to every node in the world and see who makes the first move" thing. It's a good point.

i'm not sure if he is correct about using Tor not working for inbound connections. i didn't know that was the case, if so and would like developer commentary on it.

ps: bitcoinfs -- whoa! that's what wikileaks should be right there.

that dude is a fucking douch bag. He had me thinking "oh wow, some insanely smart, nearly autistic type talking about really indepth shit that is way over my head". And then he said,

" http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=gQoykhNoBbY#t=1305s    "


his technical point he is leading up to is that Bitcoin failed at anonymity, or at least the devs did. And they did so because of 'nodes' all relaying.


For those that were under the misconception that Bitcoin was ever thought by the Devs to be completely anon, then you have some homework to do.

Start here;
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tor

Uh sure if there's 1 node, unfortunately this is a problem that every node has to deal with. I can't possibly imagine how someone who works on bitcoin magazine and has 2,300 posts and I think his own bitcoin message board too would not understand the difference.

Give it a couple years. I have a feeling that we'll have 100TB hard drives commonly available before scaling to Visa sizes... I have no issues buying a new HDD every year to support the network. I also torrent about 100GB/week anyway, connections speeds should have increased by then as well.

+1

and one of my projects, whether I find a way to make a profitable business or not of it involves running supernodes for just such a reason. =)

So there is a real scalability problem? Is Ben's face really in the blockchain?

Yes, and yes (http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=BUB3dygQ).

You'll be able to run as a 'hidden service' that is advertised to other nodes running on the Tor network and get incoming Tor connections in the next release.

See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/Tor.txt  for details (send thanks to Pieter Wuille for doing the work).

RE: hard drive space:  Pieter has been busy optimizing HD usage, too ("ultraprune (https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/tree/ultraprune)"), but that work isn't finished yet.

TY, see we know the devs are constantly working on these things and certainly havn't 'failed' in any respect thus far.

Again the talk was more a critical speech on how it is so dumb compared to how HE cold do it. Instead of what could have been a really nice 'problem vs solution' talk or even jsut a straight forward technical analysis.

My orginal remarks stand. DOUCHEEe

Yes there is a real scalability problem if all users are full clients.  No, that was never the intention.  We are already way past the point (imho) that we need more full clients.  We need more light clients and overlay networks to support them, such as BitcoinSpinner, Electrum & Stratum.

Do you think VISA size network would have a problem buying 1000 HDD's a day, 4 years from now?

Hehehehe the more important point is that if Bitcoin reaches the size of the Visa network, then we already won.

It also wouldn't be true once pruning is enabled.  Bandwidth would be a bottleneck for full clients on the margins, but certainly not any server-farm housed full client.

This is also true, if Bitcoin ever reaches this level of success, as solution will be found because we are already too big to stop.

Exactly! He is saying: "if they win, they fail". Quite a logical fallacy this one, is it not?

Anyway, there is that thing, good project managers know about "premature optimisation"...

the problem is he didn't do it, he won't do it, and he can't do it.

I say a scalability problem may not exist.

The fact is transactions on the core Bitcoin network are NOT ideal. Such transactions are slow to confirm, and are not user friendly for more mainstream use.

What makes far more sense is eWallet/PayPal-esque transactions. Pay or receive amounts to/from anyone with an email address. The transaction is instant, and the experience as user-friendly as you like.

The majority of Bitcoin transactions should be rows updated in databases of such services. Typical transactions are not going to be large, so such services don't need to act as banks and store big Bitcoin balances. They are instead streamlined to be transactional. I estimate 70% of all Bitcoin transactions could and would be better serviced this way.

People can still store the majority of their coins offline, or however they like, and deposit/withdraw from the eWallets (infrequently) as necessary.

There was a article on the forum talking about the new hard drives coming out. I couldn't find the exact article, but I think this is about the same thing. This should pretty much solve the storage scalability issue. Hopefully newer technologies will always stay ahead of it. Bitcoin would basically die if the average computer could not hold the blockchain with reasonable ease. I've been more concerned about the download time. The network does not seem to allow fast downloads of the blockchain. It seems like this issue could be solved. I've never heard it discussed before though.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9225335/With_tech_breakthrough_Seagate_promises_60TB_drives_this_decade (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9225335/With_tech_breakthrough_Seagate_promises_60TB_drives_this_decade)

Yes, our overlay network (paytunia) is unfolding nicely and no we are not "morphing" (sorry Mr Kaminski) into anything resembling a traditional bank..

Is this guy drunk or does he speak and act like this usually?

i think he is just trying to wake people up with some controversial quotes.

right at the start "there are only 5 people in the room who understand why [multicast issues on the internet] this so true"

when cleaning up some scarcasm from his text he says:
bitcoin is the best value transaction system in the world
the code seems extemely secure he could not point to any exploit

there are exactly 2 issues he is worried about:
1) scalability because it keeps all transaction history
2) bitcoin is not anonymous

so to counter this criticism:

1) the community is very aware of scalability and is developing fixes for it.
2) this is intentional

interestingly he claimed a bitcoin thief published a donation address somewhere with a different ID. what is the story here?

Thanks and I like your hat.

This guy is actually very good at explaining how bitcoin works... Someone should hire him as a PR guy...

Also, unlike many critics, at least hes analyzed it in depth and looked at the source... I agree with many things he says...

Here is an off topic question/issue for any of the smart people viewing the thread who might be able to help. I started posting on the Joe Rogan Pocast Forums after Adam Kokesh was a guest on his show. Someone inferred that Adam was not too bright as he is a bitcoin advocate and bitcoin is of course a useless digital pump and dump currency for free market dummies like ourselves. I asked him how he arrived at that conclusion and he responded with the following:

"It's extremely volatile when it comes to day-to-day commerce using BitCoins. Valuation judged by conversion rates can (and have) swing rapidly one day to the next. One day you're e-wallet is worth $1000 worth of BitCoins and the next it could be worth $500. There's no confidence indicator for anyone to engage in commercial activity. This is why at the moment, the distribution of BitCoin mining comes from power users hoarding BitCoins, producing merely to produce BitCoins and pump and steady it's value.

All BitCoin has going for it is the algorithmic block that gives it scarcity, and the anonymity for transactions. However, both are highly contested by computer scientists who find more exploits and vulnerabilities with BitCoin everyday.

One could say crypto-currencies are in a very nascent stage but without regulation, all it takes is the collusion of large BitCoin holders/miners to process and transact securitized agreed-upon nodes and then reject others, and then BitCoin will to go the way of company scrip."

Now I could quickly respond by pointing out some of the more obvious factual errors in his response. But seeing as how there have been over 35,000 views on the particular thread I thought it might be worth taking a little more time and enlisting the help of the bitcoin community to dispel his nonsense in a clear and powerful way. suggestions?

here is a link I dont think that you can view without being registered though. http://forums.joerogan.net/showthread.php?t=239888&page=81

Well, I guess if we're going to organize a response, we should think of the best way to respond to each point.

Volatility: This one is an issue, but one that I believe will work itself out over time. Maybe some references to bitcoincharts over the past 6 months would provide hard data. Maybe someone else has a better idea here, because the volatility is probably keeping businesses away. Oh, how about Bit-Pay? It provides quick conversion straight to USD so that volatility doesn't matter and merchants can accept BTC without risk.

Vulnerabilities: Open source. According to https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures , the last real exploit was in August 2010, and that was handled with a blockchain fork. Since then, we've been doing great. Client devs are doing a good job of patching up issues before they become a threat. Emphasize that the protocol itself has had no issues; all problems are with bugs in client code.

51% Attack: There was a recent thread where plenty of people explained why a 51% attack would not have much of an effect. It might be worth tracking it down. Maybe find some quotes from large pool operators where they explain that they're not going to collaborate on an attack? Maybe bring up p2pool as a helpful solution.

Any other ideas?

As far as I'm concerned, Bitpay has dealt with the issue of volatility fully. You can get paid in bitcoins and the payment is converted instantly into fiat and deposited in your account. This means you either:

a) Don't care about volatility because you "think" in bitcoins and you're getting paid in bitcoins, or

b) Don't care about volatility because you "think" in fiat, and you're getting paid in fiat, and Bitcoin is just a fast, uncounterfeitable payment processor without the risk of chargebacks.

Either way, you win.

Incidentally, another way of looking at volatility is that, in the absence of hacks, the volatility has typically been upward when measured over periods longer than a few days. That's the kind of volatility a business owner can live with  :D