2012-11-28 theverge.com - Total number of Bitcoins hits 10.5 million, production

[julz]

Total number of Bitcoins hits 10.5 million, production halves to stop inflation
Can technology replace the Federal Reserve?


Adrianne Jeffries
2012-11-28

http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/28/3701434/total-number-of-bitcoins-hits-10-5-million-production-halves-to-stop


The total number of Bitcoins in circulation just hit 10.5 million, triggering a safeguard against inflation that was hardcoded into the digital currency.

...

Bitcoin has been hailed as a revolutionary populist movement, but it's also a grand economic experiment. The market's reaction in the coming weeks will be the first major test of whether technology can replace government's role in regulating money.

[Technomage]

Good article and a lot of comments already. Comments range from bad to good but one thing is clear, there are people who want to understand Bitcoin but find it hard to understand. That is a problem we must address.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Good article and a lot of comments already. Comments range from bad to good but one thing is clear, there are people who want to understand Bitcoin but find it hard to understand. That is a problem we must address.

Really? The federal reserve obfuscated so well for 100 years that nobody understands their scheme ... yet everyone still uses it.

People need to understand how to use bitcoin and how it is better money ... that's all.

[kiba]

The verge crowd is dumber than hacker news.

[molecular]

Good article and a lot of comments already. Comments range from bad to good but one thing is clear, there are people who want to understand Bitcoin but find it hard to understand. That is a problem we must address.

Really? The federal reserve obfuscated so well for 100 years that nobody understands their scheme ... yet everyone still uses it.

People need to understand how to use bitcoin and how it is better money ... that's all.

I kind of disagree here. Why is it better money? To understand why it's better and why you can trust the scarcity, you need to understand the technical details down to a certain level (the level at which you trust the properties of the building blocks).

For me, these building blocks are mainly "cryptographic hash function", "signing using asymmetric cryptography". I don't fully understand how these work internally, but I trust them to exhibit the relevant properties. From these properties, assuming a understanding of the further concepts of "proof of work", "transaction", "blockchain", follows the trust I have in the scarcity of bitcoins.

I believe that someone who didn't see for himself how he can trust that scarcity will not, in the end, trust it.

The federal reserve instilled the trust into FIAT by "regression" (used to be redeemable in gold), disinformation and regulatory capture.

I would like to be better than them and get people to trust bitcoin voluntarily and fundamentally by their own understanding of this truly revolutionary system.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Good article and a lot of comments already. Comments range from bad to good but one thing is clear, there are people who want to understand Bitcoin but find it hard to understand. That is a problem we must address.

Really? The federal reserve obfuscated so well for 100 years that nobody understands their scheme ... yet everyone still uses it.

People need to understand how to use bitcoin and how it is better money ... that's all.

I kind of disagree here. Why is it better money? To understand why it's better and why you can trust the scarcity, you need to understand the technical details down to a certain level (the level at which you trust the properties of the building blocks).

For me, these building blocks are mainly "cryptographic hash function", "signing using asymmetric cryptography". I don't fully understand how these work internally, but I trust them to exhibit the relevant properties. From these properties, assuming a understanding of the further concepts of "proof of work", "transaction", "blockchain", follows the trust I have in the scarcity of bitcoins.

I believe that someone who didn't see for himself how he can trust that scarcity will not, in the end, trust it.

The federal reserve instilled the trust into FIAT by "regression" (used to be redeemable in gold), disinformation and regulatory capture.

I would like to be better than them and get people to trust bitcoin voluntarily and fundamentally by their own understanding of this truly revolutionary system.

I hear what you're saying ... each has his/her own requirement of proof to satisfy curiosity/doubts, etc ... for the vast majority "better" money is the one that holds its value and can be traded freely, if this visceral meme takes hold, i.e. bitcoin holds value, it would be enough (imho).

[molecular]

Good article and a lot of comments already. Comments range from bad to good but one thing is clear, there are people who want to understand Bitcoin but find it hard to understand. That is a problem we must address.

Really? The federal reserve obfuscated so well for 100 years that nobody understands their scheme ... yet everyone still uses it.

People need to understand how to use bitcoin and how it is better money ... that's all.

I kind of disagree here. Why is it better money? To understand why it's better and why you can trust the scarcity, you need to understand the technical details down to a certain level (the level at which you trust the properties of the building blocks).

For me, these building blocks are mainly "cryptographic hash function", "signing using asymmetric cryptography". I don't fully understand how these work internally, but I trust them to exhibit the relevant properties. From these properties, assuming a understanding of the further concepts of "proof of work", "transaction", "blockchain", follows the trust I have in the scarcity of bitcoins.

I believe that someone who didn't see for himself how he can trust that scarcity will not, in the end, trust it.

The federal reserve instilled the trust into FIAT by "regression" (used to be redeemable in gold), disinformation and regulatory capture.

I would like to be better than them and get people to trust bitcoin voluntarily and fundamentally by their own understanding of this truly revolutionary system.

I hear what you're saying ... each has his/her own requirement of proof to satisfy curiosity/doubts, etc ... for the vast majority "better" money is the one that holds its value and can be traded freely, if this visceral meme takes hold, i.e. bitcoin holds value, it would be enough (imho).

Point taken. Maybe the masses don't need proof (by understanding), they might be content to "follow example" or "trust by proxy".

I think it might greatly help to educate as much as possible, though and I wont stop thinking about and trying out new ways of explaining the technicalities and ideas comprising Bitcoin. Understanding these probably has some favorable side-effects, too.

[julz]

For those who do think education on the mechanics of Bitcoin is a worthwhile goal... consider that the recent 'cryptoparty' phenomenon can dovetail in with Bitcoin quite nicely.
(hashtag #cryptoparty on twitter)

This is a grassroots effort to promote a wider understanding of privacy/encryption tools, technology and issues.  (e.g peole talk about and attempt to educate each other on Tor, GPG, OTR etc)
I went to a cryptoparty in Sydney last week, where someone got up and spoke a little about Bitcoin.

Get along to a cryptoparty in your city ( or start one!) and help make Bitcoin a component of it.

[hazek]

Good article and a lot of comments already. Comments range from bad to good but one thing is clear, there are people who want to understand Bitcoin but find it hard to understand. That is a problem we must address.

Yep I agree with this.

[marcus_of_augustus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDcdE9ngx08

I think this is about the right level .... happy halving.

[grondilu]

Really? The federal reserve obfuscated so well for 100 years that nobody understands their scheme ... yet everyone still uses it.

It's easy for people to accept  Fed's notes because nobody really gives them much of a choice.

For someone to start to accept bitcoin on the other hand, (s)he must  decide to do so.  That's a totally different mental process.

[FreeMoney]

While I don't think the vast majority need to know the inner workings in order to trust and use bitcoin (as mentioned they used FED paper for a long time) there is some minority of oh 100 million people or so that would benefit by better explanations that I've currently seen available so it is a profitable avenue to pursue imo.