a billion flavors of altcoin vs a true electronic currency

[not.you]

I guess I had hoped for more interest in this topic.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=242174.0

I had planned to wait and see what was said before really laying it out there but since no-one had anything to say I’ll just lay it out here.  Some form of widely adopted electronic currency is coming, that much is certain.  It has to be something that is suitable for face to face purchases.  You could theoretically get adoption of bitcoin or litecoin for online merchant purchases where the slow confirmation is not a deal killer.  But if you wanted to pay in electronic currency for in store purchases, slow confirmation will not cut it. Which means bitcoin and litecoin will never be the ubiquitous electronic currency of the masses.

And while I am on the subject of the masses, most people don’t care about the technical details (even if they could understand them). They just want something simple that works.  And you can be sure that the powers that be will eventually provide that.  You will get a centralized currency controlled by the world bank or some other existing power structure and it will satisfy the needs of the masses and the merchants but mostly it will satisfy the needs of those in power.  In which case everyone will agree that decentralized crypto currencies like bitcoin and litecoin serve no legitimate purpose and only serve the needs of criminals, and then I think everyone can guess what will happen next.

So if we want the universally accepted electronic currency to also include elements like being decentralized and anonymous then we need to create it now before we wind up with UN COIN or WORLD BANK COIN.

So what is required is an electronic currency with transactions that have a very high degree of confidence in less than 2 minutes.  What that means in terms of finding a fast block time that doesn’t cause a massive amount of blockchain bloat in the long run and a lot of orphans in the short run, I don’t know.  But you can be sure that confirmations that take more time than that are just too long to be useful.  If I am travelling and I wake up in Thailand and want to pay for breakfast before catching a plane to Japan where I want to pay for dinner, then I need an electronic currency that allows me to pay at the register, which means it needs very fast confirmations.

My personal opinion is also that SHA-256 is the best choice as an encryption algorithm based on the fact that bitcoin is already responsible for widely disseminating ASIC gear based on that hashing algorithm.  Every algorithm is potentially open to having ASIC’s built to work on it.  If a new coin based on scrypt (or anything else for that matter) really takes off, it is not clear that some kind of ASIC gear monopoly would not develop around it.  It is a good bet that an ASIC monopoly on a new SHA-256 based currency would not happen.

So that’s basically my spiel.  Either we can watch a decentralized currency that meets the needs of the real world arise to become the electronic currency of the planet, or we can wait and inherit a centralized electronic currency from someone like the world bank.

I have also watched a remarkable number of altcoin launches in a remarkably short time here so I know a lot of people are probably going to roll their eyes at the suggestion of yet another coin.  However I think that if done correctly, with lots of advanced notice, no premine, multiple pools setup at launch and so on, then it could start with a huge advantage and a much better chance of becoming the universal coin that I believe is coming one way or another.

[1714118090]

1714118090

[snaidervp]

If only people couldnt be so greedy, so self motivated, so shortsighted...

Same story continues 2500(or 5000) years now...

Why should i by all means possibly want something that every single person could have...

[shakezula]

My personal opinion is also that SHA-256 is the best choice as an encryption algorithm based on the fact that bitcoin is already responsible for widely disseminating ASIC gear based on that hashing algorithm.  Every algorithm is potentially open to having ASIC’s built to work on it.  If a new coin based on scrypt (or anything else for that matter) really takes off, it is not clear that some kind of ASIC gear monopoly would not develop around it.  It is a good bet that an ASIC monopoly on a new SHA-256 based currency would not happen.

I agree with this, and Proof of Stake (ala PPC) makes it even more interesting. Why we're not all supporting the original coins I'll never know. BTC isn't perfect, but it doesn't need replacement imo. Its already gained use/acceptance/understanding at a minimal level and the TH/s of computational power behind it and lots more coming make them secure and that's the point, yea?

[digitalindustry]

I guess I had hoped for more interest in this topic.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=242174.0

I had planned to wait and see what was said before really laying it out there but since no-one had anything to say I’ll just lay it out here.  Some form of widely adopted electronic currency is coming, that much is certain.  It has to be something that is suitable for face to face purchases.  You could theoretically get adoption of bitcoin or litecoin for online merchant purchases where the slow confirmation is not a deal killer.  But if you wanted to pay in electronic currency for in store purchases, slow confirmation will not cut it. Which means bitcoin and litecoin will never be the ubiquitous electronic currency of the masses.

Possibly - but not definitely.

And while I am on the subject of the masses, most people don’t care about the technical details (even if they could understand them). They just want something simple that works.  And you can be sure that the powers that be will eventually provide that.  You will get a centralized currency controlled by the world bank or some other existing power structure and it will satisfy the needs of the masses and the merchants but mostly it will satisfy the needs of those in power.  In which case everyone will agree that decentralized crypto currencies like bitcoin and litecoin serve no legitimate purpose and only serve the needs of criminals, and then I think everyone can guess what will happen next.

Hey don't get me wrong , i know people are idiots , but you are pushing it a bit here , you seem to misunderstand some very large vectors of the current system as it exists - without getting into it all right now let me tell you , it literally can't get any worse , , so that is to say , that anything that changes will just cause a wealth transfer from where it is now to somewhere else , the issue is not "currency" as such its simply Debt , and the human western population is at its "Debt limit" - now the Debt can't be written off , but more can't be issued, so that's where we are , and new generations are scarily Debt adverse , so there is a slow slide towards deflation and fire , explosions , the yelling and the yeah yeah -

so now armed with this new education - you need to explain to me how , the "UN coin" or the "WORLD BANK COIN" forces or issues more Debt slavery WITHOUT cancelling the original Debt.  because that's the key . if that original Debt is cancelled , then that is a wealth trnasfer from the very tiny amount that hold most of the worlds wealth to somewhere else.

So if we want the universally accepted electronic currency to also include elements like being decentralized and anonymous then we need to create it now before we wind up with UN COIN or WORLD BANK COIN.

So what is required is an electronic currency with transactions that have a very high degree of confidence in less than 2 minutes.  What that means in terms of finding a fast block time that doesn’t cause a massive amount of blockchain bloat in the long run and a lot of orphans in the short run, I don’t know.  But you can be sure that confirmations that take more time than that are just too long to be useful.  If I am travelling and I wake up in Thailand and want to pay for breakfast before catching a plan to Japan where I want to pay for dinner, then I need an electronic currency that allows me to pay at the register, which means it needs very fast confirmations.

My personal opinion is also that SHA-256 is the best choice as an encryption algorithm based on the fact that bitcoin is already responsible for widely disseminating ASIC gear based on that hashing algorithm.  Every algorithm is potentially open to having ASIC’s built to work on it.  If a new coin based on scrypt (or anything else for that matter) really takes off, it is not clear that some kind of ASIC gear monopoly would not develop around it.  It is a good bet that an ASIC monopoly on a new SHA-256 based currency would not happen.

So that’s basically my spiel.  Either we can watch a decentralized currency that meets the needs of the real world arise to become the electronic currency of the planet, or we can wait and inherit a centralized electronic currency from someone like the world bank.

I have also watched a remarkable number of altcoin launches in a remarkably short time here so I know a lot of people are probably going to roll their eyes at the suggestion of yet another coin.  However I think that if done correctly, with lots of advanced notice, no premine, multiple pools setup at launch and so on, then it could start with a huge advantage and a much better chance of becoming the universal coin that I believe is coming one way or another.



So in Summary :

you are worrying about an intangible - the "Powers that Be" are lucky to know what the internet is - they sub out some guys to collect all our info - more likely this will happen :

1. A slow slide into deflation ,

2. the West becomes a backwater

3. "black markets" pop up everywhere

4. the "Government" turns a blind eye to them because people aren't eating each other anymore, and half the police are paid in Crypto of some sort , because its the now only semi viable market functioning currency .

Basically a failed state.

[digitalindustry]

snaidervp

lol nice Cap

i thought it said Darkwater lol

as in the guy.

[not.you]

Well I’m not sure I understand where you are coming from digitalindustry.  I am not speaking to debt or wage slavery or any of that exactly.  Western culture is based on consumption; people want to spend their money.  And they want it to be easy to do.  And countries like India and China aspire to join the world of conspicuous consumption.  With that in mind, I think it is a no brainer that someone will eventually provide an electronic currency that allows it.  A one size fits all solution for the entire planet for spending your money.  Same money, accepted everywhere.  To some extent you have this already with credit cards but not quite.  And with conversion fees in the background when used to make purchases in various currencies it is unsatisfactory for the consumer.

You already see trends in this direction with the euro and discussion of the amero.  Eventually there will be a universo or whaterever it is called.  The point is that there is time for that currency to arise naturally out of a place like this where experimentation in alternate forms of electronic currency is already taking place, or it can be handed to the consumers of the world by the existing power structures.  If the latter happens, you can be sure it will have built in methods of control allowing Interpol or the like to seize funds, allowing transactions to be tracked and reversed and whatever else those kinds of people want.  If however it arises from this community here, it can retain elements of the other alternative currencies being experimented with like anonymity and decentralization.

My point is that the community should be looking at altcoins with an eye for whether or not they actually have the potential to fulfill the need of a global electronic currency, and if they do not they should be sent back to the drawing board.  At the same time the discussion about what exactly those needs are should be better and better defined so we can stop seeing an endless parade of pump and dump crap coins and instead see a better and better refinement of coins designed to fill the real world need.

Why we're not all supporting the original coins I'll never know. BTC isn't perfect, but it doesn't need replacement imo. Its already gained use/acceptance/understanding at a minimal level and the TH/s of computational power behind it and lots more coming make them secure and that's the point, yea?

BTC and LTC are both unsatisfactory for face to face real world transactions.  If you cannot be sure of the validity of your payment for close to an hour (or more really) then you are unlikely to hand over whatever I am paying you for.  If that happens to be lunch or a cup of coffee, that is clearly unworkable.  Both of these cryptocurrencies are benefiting from being first, but they both fall short of the real world requirements of an electronic currency that could attain global adoption.

[DeathAndTaxes]

BTC and LTC are both unsatisfactory for face to face real world transactions.  If you cannot be sure of the validity of your payment for close to an hour (or more really) then you are unlikely to hand over whatever I am paying you for.  If that happens to be lunch or a cup of coffee, that is clearly unworkable.

Credit cards and debit cards are both unsatisfactory for face to face real world transactions.  If you cannot be sure of the validity of your payment for close to 30 days (or more really) then you are unlikely to hand over whatever I am paying you for.  If that happens to be lunch or a cup of coffee, that is clearly unworkable.

Clearly given credit card fraud exceeds 0% and transactions can be reserved up to 180 days later, so Credit Cards never caught on for time sensitive purchases.   We all still use gold coins and carry around bullion scales.

Bitcoin doesn't need to be perfect it only needs to be better.  If the rate of double spend attacks in face to face transactions (especially low value ones like a lunch) is less than credit cards then a merchant loses LESS (keeps MORE) then they do by using credit cards.

[not.you]

BTC and LTC are both unsatisfactory for face to face real world transactions.  If you cannot be sure of the validity of your payment for close to an hour (or more really) then you are unlikely to hand over whatever I am paying you for.  If that happens to be lunch or a cup of coffee, that is clearly unworkable.

Credit cards and debit cards are both unsatisfactory for face to face real world transactions.  If you cannot be sure of the validity of your payment for close to 30 days (or more really) then you are unlikely to hand over whatever I am paying you for.  If that happens to be lunch or a cup of coffee, that is clearly unworkable.

Clearly given credit card fraud exceeds 0% and transactions can be reserved up to 180 days later, so Credit Cards never caught on for time sensitive purchases.   We all still use gold coins and carry around bullion scales.

Bitcoin doesn't need to be perfect it only needs to be better.  If the rate of double spend attacks in face to face transactions (especially low value ones like a lunch) is less than credit cards then a merchant loses LESS (keeps MORE) then they do by using credit cards.

I like what you did there!  But face to face transactions is not where the real problem of credit card fraud exists, that is by far and away a problem with internet transactions using credit cards.  Also, in a face to face credit card transaction the merchant can require photo ID and compare signatures if they want, affording another level of protection for themselves.

But as far as electronic currency and face to face transaction, if I was at the grocery store for example with a basket full of food, that would not be an inconsiderable amount for the merchant to potentially lose and I most certainly would not have time to stand around waiting for confirmations, stuff could be melting. BTC and LTC are simply not suitable for this kind of transaction in their present form.  But you are right, it comes down to how often double spends cost them money.  But human beings while generally not very smart, tend to be very clever, and if they can figure out how to get away with double spend scams even on an irregular basis they will.

Just as an aside, have you ever tried to reverse a credit card transaction?  First the bank will demand that you work it out with the merchant, which while fair enough, doesn't always work out.  If you go back to the bank and say that didn't work they make it a pain in the arse for you to get your money back.  You can sometimes do it, but it isn't remotely easy.  Depending on how exactly the transaction went down, the merchant can minimize the likelihood of having it reversed.

Maybe the real problem with this thread is that I'm dreaming to even imagine that a decentralized pseudo-anonymous electronic currency would ever be adopted for the kinds of circumstances I am talking about.  Maybe we are doomed to an electronic currency issued by something more like the world bank or goldman sachs.

[DeathAndTaxes]

I like what you did there!  But face to face transactions is not where the real problem of credit card fraud exists, that is by far and away a problem with internet transactions using credit cards.  Also, in a face to face credit card transaction the merchant can require photo ID and compare signatures if they want, affording another level of protection for themselves.

But as far as electronic currency and face to face transaction, if I was at the grocery store for example with a basket full of food, that would not be an inconsiderable amount for the merchant to potentially lose and I most certainly would not have time to stand around waiting for confirmations, stuff could be melting. BTC and LTC are simply not suitable for this kind of transaction in their present form.

Does your grocery merchant require you to pay with credit card 30-180 days before allowing you to take delivery of the food?  It the utility of virtual currency exceeds the rate of fraud it will be adopted.  Fraud doesn't have to be zero.  Actually trying to achieve that goal is likely futile and that system will lose out to one which is "good enough".

But you are right, it comes down to how often double spends cost them money.  But human beings while generally not very smart, tend to be very clever, and if they can figure out how to get away with double spend scams even on an irregular basis they will.

If humans can figure out how to use stolen, skimmed credit cards even on an irregular basis they will.  If humans can figure out how to lie about making a purchase (so called "friendly fraud) they will.  The reality is that they do both of these, everyday.  However the utility is worth more than the inevitable credit card losses and so merchants continue to use them.

Just as an aside, have you ever tried to reverse a credit card transaction?  First the bank will demand that you work it out with the merchant, which while fair enough, doesn't always work out.  If you go back to the bank and say that didn't work they make it a pain in the arse for you to get your money back.  You can sometimes do it, but it isn't remotely easy.  Depending on how exactly the transaction went down, the merchant can minimize the likelihood of having it reversed.

I have reversed plenty and it wasn't even remotely that hard.  Called the bank told them I tried resolving it with the merchant and the merchant wouldn't.  Bank get me conditional credit the same day and halted any finance charges (there were none but if there were they stop once dispute opens).  The bank mailed me a document, I signed it and mailed it back and had finalized reversal in about a week.  My understanding is that on smaller amounts the banks don't even require signature on chargebacks.

Maybe the real problem with this thread is that I'm dreaming to even imagine that a decentralized pseudo-anonymous electronic currency would ever be adopted for the kinds of circumstances I am talking about.  Maybe we are doomed to an electronic currency issued by something more like the world bank or goldman sachs.

No I think crypto-currencies can be used everywhere.  It can replace propreitary systems in emerging markets like mpesa, it can be used face to face, it can be used online, it can be used as large value settlements between large organizations.  It simply requires some out of the box thinking.

[cocales]

my cat's name is mittens............

[markm]

This is so stupid.

As already pointed out, with credit cards - and heck maybe even debit cards - you need 180 days for confirmation and even then maybe that is not ironclad.

so waiting only one hour is 24*180 times as good already. it is awesomely massively fast. A merchant will usually know in the same fiscal period, often even in the same payperiod or recurring expenses period how much of their trade got reversed.

Heck even 180 hours would have been an improvement, one or two or three hours IS darn near instant! Its not even next business day kind of stuff, not even like waiting overnight for a cheque to clear!

Plus, there is no reason why your payment handling services cannot give instant confirm and eat the losses themselves (passing them on to the merchants by category of merchant like credit card companies do, different merchants involve different risk so pay more "insurance" in the form of fees...)

-MarkM-

[shakezula]

BTC and LTC are both unsatisfactory for face to face real world transactions.  If you cannot be sure of the validity of your payment for close to an hour (or more really) then you are unlikely to hand over whatever I am paying you for.  If that happens to be lunch or a cup of coffee, that is clearly unworkable.  Both of these cryptocurrencies are benefiting from being first, but they both fall short of the real world requirements of an electronic currency that could attain global adoption.

Your point is very valid, but I propose that neither BTC nor LTC are designed to do this currently. The time it takes for the network to confirm to a reasonable point is ultimately for the buyer and seller's protection. In its current form BTC is not designed to make daily minimal purchases at the convenience store. Its designed for direct person to person/vendor transactions securely and without need for a centralized transaction verification master. Could it be made faster? I wager yes, but there is a tradeoff.

In reality your idea is already in place in many formats...Visa/MC/et.al., PayPass, SpeedPass, NFC, etc. These are instantaneous payments, already in nearly every store in the world in some form or another. BTC isn't a replacement for these, nor do I know if a crypto currency will ever be a replacement. To gain the speed of centralized verification, you lose the primary (decentralized) benefit of BTC.

[not.you]

BTC and LTC are both unsatisfactory for face to face real world transactions.  If you cannot be sure of the validity of your payment for close to an hour (or more really) then you are unlikely to hand over whatever I am paying you for.  If that happens to be lunch or a cup of coffee, that is clearly unworkable.  Both of these cryptocurrencies are benefiting from being first, but they both fall short of the real world requirements of an electronic currency that could attain global adoption.

Your point is very valid, but I propose that neither BTC nor LTC are designed to do this currently. The time it takes for the network to confirm to a reasonable point is ultimately for the buyer and seller's protection. In its current form BTC is not designed to make daily minimal purchases at the convenience store. Its designed for direct person to person/vendor transactions securely and without need for a centralized transaction verification master. Could it be made faster? I wager yes, but there is a tradeoff.

This is basically my point.  I was never intending to argue a BTC vs credit card thing.  Is BTC "good enough"?  In some cases yes but in others no.  My point is that if there is going to be an electronic currency that takes on the sort of universal adoption I am envisioning, BTC and LTC will not be it because of this alone.  If it comes down to a merchant feeling like they have too much loss to double spends they have 2 choices, stop accepting the currency or make the customer wait.  As I pointed out, there are situations where waiting is not really an option.  Which means they can take the losses or stop accepting the currency.  So everything else being equal, any currency which does a better job and provides better assurance at a faster rate will win in the marketplace.

In reality your idea is already in place in many formats...Visa/MC/et.al., PayPass, SpeedPass, NFC, etc. These are instantaneous payments, already in nearly every store in the world in some form or another. BTC isn't a replacement for these, nor do I know if a crypto currency will ever be a replacement. To gain the speed of centralized verification, you lose the primary (decentralized) benefit of BTC.

Yes but it is a mishmash and there are fees involved all over the place.  Anyone who comes along with something simple with less fees that has universal adoption will win a lot of business.

[DeathAndTaxes]

My personal opinion is also that SHA-256 is the best choice as an encryption algorithm

You obviously missed the news about NSA having troubles with encryption algorithms that use more than 256 bits, e.g. those that use less than
256 bits are more or less dead and buried.

Nonsense.  Still SHA-256 isn't an encryption algorithm.

[DeathAndTaxes]

My personal opinion is also that SHA-256 is the best choice as an encryption algorithm

You obviously missed the news about NSA having troubles with encryption algorithms that use more than 256 bits, e.g. those that use less than
256 bits are more or less dead and buried.

Nonsense.  Still SHA-256 isn't an encryption algorithm.

Hash algo, whatever. NSA will own our outdated asses regardless. 

Not sure where you get the idea that 256 bit is outdated.  You do realize that key strength depends on the algorithm.

For example 256 bit ECC has equivelent security as 128 bit AES and 4096 bit RSA.  By your logic 3072 bit RSA is "new" and more secure.

I will leave you with this ...

These numbers have nothing to do with the technology of the devices; they are the maximums that thermodynamics will allow. And they strongly imply that brute-force attacks against 256-bit keys will be infeasible until computers are built from something other than matter and occupy something other than space.  Ten years later, there is still no reason to use anything more than a 256-bit symmetric key. I gave the same advice in 2003 Practical Cryptography (pp. 65-6). Even a mythical quantum computer won't be able to brute-force that large a keyspace. (Public keys are different, of course -- see Table 2.2 of this NIST document for recommendations

Wake me up when the NSA has computers built from non-matter occupying non-space*.


*(Disclaimer as it is often misinterpreted the quote above doesn't apply to cryptographic flaws in the algorithm however that is a different topic then "256 bit is outdated".)

[jubalix]

don't worry so much

people are trusting in the maths

an the shear number of altcoins will evolve something that works.

UN coin or whatever would just be broken over the back of maths based coins, every time.

Who is going to buy into UN coin, when it can be devalued, taxed, and seized at anytime by central govs.

Any such introduction would just see BTC et. al shoot up.