Slashdot Submission for 1.0

[teppy]

Unless anyone else knows a Slashdot editor, I'd be willing to submit this when 1.0 is released. (More people submitting their own versions will improve the chances of hitting the front page.)

(Technology Section)
Headline: Bitcoin releases Version 0.3
Tag: Encryption
Body: How's this for a disruptive technology? Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer network based digital currency with no central bank, and no transaction fees. Using a proof-of-work concept, nodes burn CPU cycles searching for bundles of coins, broadcasting their findings to the network. Analysis of energy usage indicates that the market value of Bitcoins is already above the value of the energy needed to generate them, indicating healthy demand. The community is hopeful the currency will remain outside the reach of any government.

Comments?

[Edited the "energy backed" language.]
[Eliminated the 21M number, as db suggested. Mentioning subdividing would be too wordy.]
[Incorporated some of amall's suggestions, including eliminating the passive voice in the final sentence.]
[Integrated satoshi's suggestions, eliminating the word "anonymous", mention of Hashcash, and the "developers expect" taunt.]
[Changed the closing sentence to dwdollar's "...community is hopeful..." language. Satoshi, are you OK with that?]

[llama]

I wouldn't call bitcoin "energy backed".  There has been ample discussion on this and varying opinions, but I think most people would say that the bitcoin's value determines the amount of energy required to generate them, and not the other way around.

In the short run, the energy cost of generation may ensure a baseline value, but in the long run the value will be solely based on human behavior.

Thanks for pushing for a slashdot feature, bitcoin could really use some publicity to help it grow.

[Timo Y]

Unless anyone else knows a Slashdot editor, I'd be willing to submit this when 1.0 is released. (More people submitting their own versions will improve the chances of hitting the front page.)

(Technology Section)
Headline: Bitcoin releases Version 1.0
Body: How's this for a disruptive technology? Bitcoin is a buyer-anonymous, seller-anonymous cryptocurrency with no central bank, and no transaction fees. Using a concept similar to Hashcash, clients burn CPU cycles attempting to discover some of the 21,000,000 Bitcoins that will eventually be found. It is expected that over time, the market value of Bitcoins will reach parity with the energy needed to generate them, resulting in an energy-backed currency outside the reach of any government.

Comments?

1) I like the first two sentences.

2) Not sure whether I would include the "similar to Hashcash" phrase. I doubt that the majority of slashdot users has ever heard of Hashcash.

3) I have a problem with the "energy-backed" claim. It's misleading. Just because you need to invest energy to generate Bitcoins doesn't make them energy-backed. They would only be energy-backed if there was some sort of guarantee that they could be traded back into energy. Which there isn't. The generation of Bitcoins is irreversible. If the software was hardcoded so that you could buy other users' CPU cycles with Bitcoins, then maybe we could call them energy-backed.

[db]

Mentioning the 21 000 000 bitcoins but not that they can be divided in 100 000 000 pieces each is confusing. It doesn't sound like a practical currency.

[llama]

Good revisions so far.

More suggestions:

1) How about mentioning bittorrent instead of hashcash?  Bittorrent is a huge buzz word and could grab some attention.  As a completely distributed and anonymous network, I'd say that Bitcoin is similar enough to justify the comparison.

2) "...clients burn CPU cycles..." --> "...nodes burn CPU cycles..."

3)  Throw in "decentralized" and "proof-of-work based" somewhere

4) Personally, I'm still not fully satisfied with the mention of energy-backing.  Maybe you could replace it with something about the time-stamped transaction history being voted on / secured by the majority of CPU power? 

5) Not to be a smartass, but watch out for passive voice (e.g. "It is expected that over time...").  Headlines and news articles usually try to grab readers' attention by using the more exciting active voice.

Feel free to take all, none, or somewhere in between.  We're critical because we care 

[satoshi]

BTW, I did come to my senses after that brief bout with 1.3, this release is still going to be 0.3 beta not 1.0.

I really appreciate the effort, but there are a lot of problems.

We don't want to lead with "anonymous".  (I've been meaning to edit the homepage)

"The developers expect that this will result in a stable-with-respect-to-energy currency outside the reach of any government." -- I am definitely not making an such taunt or assertion.

It's not stable-with-respect-to-energy.  There was a discussion on this.  It's not tied to the cost of energy.  NLS's estimate based on energy was a good estimated starting point, but market forces will increasingly dominate.

Sorry to be a wet blanket.  Writing a description for this thing for general audiences is bloody hard.  There's nothing to relate it to.

[dwdollar]

I'd like to see the last two sentences...

"Preliminary analysis indicates that the market value of Bitcoins is already approaching parity with the energy needed to generate them. The developers expect that this will result in a stable-with-respect-to-energy currency outside the reach of any government."

Changed to something like this...

"Analysis of power usage indicates that the current market value of Bitcoins is at or above the energy needed to generate them.  This suggests a stable community with an increasing demand for usage.  The community is hopeful the currency will remain outside the reach of any government."

To represent the community as a whole, it probably won't resemble anything you started with.  As you average in everyone's opinion.

[Bitcoiner]

I'd like to see the last two sentences...

"Preliminary analysis indicates that the market value of Bitcoins is already approaching parity with the energy needed to generate them. The developers expect that this will result in a stable-with-respect-to-energy currency outside the reach of any government."

Changed to something like this...

"Analysis of power usage indicates that the current market value of Bitcoins is at or above the energy needed to generate them.  This suggests a stable community with an increasing demand for usage.  The community is hopeful the currency will remain outside the reach of any government."

To represent the community as a whole, it probably won't resemble anything you started with.  As you average in everyone's opinion.

I'm for this suggestion as well!

[sirius]

How about this:

Headline: Bitcoin releases version 0.3
Body: The crypto-anarchist dream come true?  Bitcoin is a digital currency using cryptography and a distributed network to replace the need for a trusted central server. Escape the arbitrary inflation risk of centrally managed currencies: Bitcoin's total circulation is limited to 21 million coins. The coins are gradually released to the network's nodes based on the CPU power they contribute, so you can get a share of them by contributing your idle CPU time. [optional addition 1] There are multiple exchangers buying and selling Bitcoins for dollars, and even pizza has been successfully traded for these digital tokens. [optional addition 2] The newly released version 0.3 contains an API for programmatic sending and receiving of payments.

The first sentence in body should be something stimulating and interesting. Does this sound ok or should it be something less radical? What do you think about the optional additions? Also, do you think the headline could be something more interesting or informative?

Please notify me before we hit the Slashdot front page so I can make sure the server stays up.  

[D҉ataWraith]

The first sentence in body should be something stimulating and interesting. Does this sound ok or should it be something less radical? What do you think about the optional additions? Also, do you think the headline could be something more interesting or informative?

I like the first two sentences, although I'd replace 'server' with 'bank'. I'd also modify or take out the part about the inflation risk -- it is a little confusing for someone not familiar with banking and how the limited circulation helps with inflation risk. The "no transaction fees" aspect of bitcoin should also be mentioned, since IMHO it is a unique selling point for bitcoin when compared to, say, Pecunix.

[Bitcoiner]

"Bitcoin's total circulation is limited to 21 million coins"

I would say this in a different way; my first reaction when I read this was "what, that's it? How will it possibly handle a large network?". I later learned that each coin is divisible into 100 million parts.

Maybe it's better to simply mention that the money supply grows into existence as people join the network, and it eventually becomes stable over time.

[teppy]

Ok, most of the suggestions have been integrated above, but one final question, mostly for satoshi, though others should chime in as well:

Should we actually try to get press right now, or wait until we do have a so-called "1.0" ?  It's going to be easier to get accepted when "1.0" is out, and trying for two Slashdot stories might be a lot to ask for.

[NewLibertyStandard]

We should make submissions for every release. The 1.0 release is simply more likely to be accepted. Digg and Reddit are also good places to make submissions. You don't need permission to make a submission, but please post a link if you do, so that we can vote for it.

[teppy]

I've submitted it - we'll see if it gets accepted. Anyone that frequents Slashdot should go to the "Firehose" section and "+" the submission.

[Xunie]

Am I the only one who thinks this is unwise at this moment?
Bitcoin's only at version 0.3, bitcoind is far from complete, we have an incomplete API, might be bugs in it, who knows?!
I hope for the sake of Bitcoin that Slashdot does not accept the story.

If we do get Slashdotted, we might face people calling Bitcoin "buggy" or "feature lacking".

Maybe I'm just being nuts or some doomsday thinker, but I'd really hate to see Bitcoin dropping.

[NewLibertyStandard]

I've submitted it - we'll see if it gets accepted. Anyone that frequents Slashdot should go to the "Firehose" section and "+" the submission.

Everybody vote it up and vote down its competition! Here's a link to the submission.

Here's a link to a comment that lists many popular services which accept bitcoins. If you're isn't listed, please add it.

[NewLibertyStandard]

Am I the only one who thinks this is unwise at this moment?
Bitcoin's only at version 0.3, bitcoind is far from complete, we have an incomplete API, might be bugs in it, who knows?!
I hope for the sake of Bitcoin that Slashdot does not accept the story.

If we do get Slashdotted, we might face people calling Bitcoin "buggy" or "feature lacking".

Maybe I'm just being nuts or some doomsday thinker, but I'd really hate to see Bitcoin dropping.

I think it's a great idea. The program runs pretty rock solid. It's been a long time since I last heard of any serious stability problems. I really doubt anyone will call Bitcoin buggy, but there's really no harm if they do. If the influx causes a problem, it's better that we catch the resulting bugs now rather than later. I wouldn't be surprised if being slashdotted resulted in a few more quality programmers examining the code, so as far as I can tell, there are only benefits to increased publicity.

[Anonymous]

voted!

[kdawson]

I downloaded Bitcoin to a MacBook Pro and set it to fetching the block chain in preparation for creating coins. On several occasions it seems to have run away with the CPU. After 5 or 6 hours it had downloaded 2% of the block chain -- not exactly quick to get started using it, that will be a drag on viral growth.

Have you had any reports of CPU hogging on Intel Macs?

[Xunie]

Am I the only one who thinks this is unwise at this moment?
Bitcoin's only at version 0.3, bitcoind is far from complete, we have an incomplete API, might be bugs in it, who knows?!
I hope for the sake of Bitcoin that Slashdot does not accept the story.

If we do get Slashdotted, we might face people calling Bitcoin "buggy" or "feature lacking".

Maybe I'm just being nuts or some doomsday thinker, but I'd really hate to see Bitcoin dropping.

I think it's a great idea. The program runs pretty rock solid. It's been a long time since I last heard of any serious stability problems. I really doubt anyone will call Bitcoin buggy, but there's really no harm if they do. If the influx causes a problem, it's better that we catch the resulting bugs now rather than later. I wouldn't be surprised if being slashdotted resulted in a few more quality programmers examining the code, so as far as I can tell, there are only benefits to increased publicity.

Well, I've had some problems, it's stable now.
But I'm saying the backend isn't prepared for the slashdot effect.

Anyhow, I'm just worried, that's all.