Ah fuck it, I'll take a stab at this
1) Problem was really "discovered" apparently three years ago, and is not actually a problem.
Incorrect, read the rebuttal from the author of the paper:
http://hackingdistributed.com/2013/11/04/bitcoin-is-broken/#comment-1110209017http://hackingdistributed.com/2013/11/09/no-you-dint/Also the most prominent Bitcoin developer Gavin Andresen is concerned and
put out a threat to anyone who attempts the attack.
The people who wrote that recent paper made some glaring mistakes and assumptions regarding mining and the bitcoin economy, not the least of which is that the network doesn't care when you mined a block, just when it was broadcast. Being selfish and holding a block while mining the next one has a huge risk that someone else will mine a block and push it out to the network before you push your own out, making your block worthless. In short, #1 is not an issue.
Incorrect, section
6.1 Problem of the research paper refutes your statement above and explains how a Sybil attack is used to foil that "huge risk". Even
without the Sybil attack, if a miner controls 33% of the network, he can accomplish the selfish-mine.
2) Similar to #1, since this attack is costly to perform, ...
Incorrect, the computation of a share is orders-of-magnitude less than the network PoW difficulty. Therefor, if you know any math, then you understand that the cost is asymmetrical and falls on the pool.
...and is extremely risky.
Incorrect, botnets can be used to supply unlimited throw away IP addresses, even if you need an ASIC to do the computation.
Plus 0.9 may address it in part, since it will be the merchant that will be receiving, checking, and broadcasting transactions.
Huh? Please explain.
3) Its not the same as being owned by the government, because miners will still not have control over the currency. Only over transactions.
Nonsense. Control over all transactions is control over a currency.
Additionally, a monopoly on mining means you can fork any feature you want, i.e. turn it back into fiat again in cohoots with the government.
And don't argue back that the community can just fork or create a new coin. Remember you are arguing that altcoins are impossible! You would then be arguing for our position.
And as long as two pools are competing for fees and mining revenue, they will continue to process as many transactions as they can.
Cartelization means there is no more competition. Cartelization is the natural outcome of society, especially Bitcoin puts the capability on a silver platter by ending debasement and relying only on transaction fees as I explained in detail in my prior post.
Also, the world is large. Instead of one government, you Han have many mining corps all around the world. Even the wealthiest corporation in the world, Exxon, still has tons of competition.
If you believe oil is not cartelized and fascist with the government, then I guess you should continue with your delusion. My father was the head attorney for West Coast division of Exxon, and later a general counsel, and later a consultant attorney for THUMS, a consortium of all the majors.
Yes the world is a big place and that is our main hope for an altcoin to continue operating if the G20 filters the internet. Some where in some third world country, the internet will still function. And so the new economy will migrate there.
As for the ballooning blockchain, that will get pruned long before that becomes a problem.
Not if mining is cartelized, because Amazon.com will have every incentive to let it grow so that others can't handle it.
And pruning only works for entirely spent coins. With all the dust (SatoshiDice), this is looking to be less effective than once thought.
4) Then I guess there is no fix, until bitcoin comes out with a fix.
Bitcoin will never add anonymity to the coin, because this would thrust it into a different regulatory state, which will upset those who want Bitcoin to be government compliant and would want to ride the G20 Titantic down the global sovereign debt collapse circa 2016 - 2020. Meanwhile a little anonymous altcoin can be sucking up all that capital that really wants to survive that implosion and thus appreciating much faster than Bitcoin and surviving after the implosion when Bitcoin will become intertwined with that SHTF government hunting down all wealth outcome coming.
You can't play along with government when it is dying. It takes everything down with it, because the socialism is bankrupt and is on auto-pilot down the toilet bowl. How many examples from history do I need to cite? Start with Wiemar then Nazi Germany.
5) Money is not valuable because you can print it at home, money is valuable because it is useful for transaction and commerce.
We already explained upthread that as long as there exists a liquid exchange between altcoins and Bitcoin, then the altcoins can be used in all the same commerce as Bitcoin.
Apt coins are mostly a waste of time and resources. Just because lots of people mine them will not automatically mean that they will be used in trade.
There you go again with your illogical FUD, forgetting what we already explained upthread.
During the MtGox hack in the summer of 2011, it was revealed that there were over 65,000 MtGox users. That number very likely doubled or tripled by the summer of 2012. By January of 2013, MtGox was adding 25,000 new users every month, and my March/April that number was 50,000 every month.Services like instawallet boasted of having over 1.5 million accounts, and Blockchain alone recently said they had over 300,000 (which I found surprisingly low). And now we also have China, which surpassed even MtGox, and may have possibly doubled the number of bitcoin users around the world (though I suspect it may account for 1\3 of new users). Either way, your 350,000 number is extremely wrong, and was likely surpassed over a year ago, before we had Cyprus, Silk Road news, and China. (My personal guess on total number of bitcoin users is 2mil to 3mil users)
That 350,000 number comes from someone who has 10,000 Bitcoins and is has a positive reputation in these forums.
Even if it is 2 - 3 million, that is still pathetic in 4 years. I will repeat that I had a million+ users in 2 years for a web page editor back in 1999 - 2001, and the internet is 10 times more users now.
Bitcoin is much less vulnerable to competition than eBay is.
It is much more vulnerable for the same reason that I explained to you upthread when you provided the HTTP example.
Ebay is not decentralized, and cryptocurrencies are.Any way, I am growing weary of debating with an idiot as demonstrated in this post. Especially don't have patience given you hurled a "fuck" in the recent post and character assassination insult at me upthread. Present some new arguments, and check your facts properly, else I am likely to ignore you.
The following comment from the discussion of that 25% attack research paper is applicable here:
http://hackingdistributed.com/2013/11/04/bitcoin-is-broken/#comment-1110508599Alas, Bitcoin has become so riven with speculators, zealots and fanatics that the implications of this will be ignored, in fact more than that they will flame the messenger.
