[2014-05-19] Winklevoss Bros: Bitcoin Will be Bigger than Facebook

[ranlo]

I wouldn't go for this option. If you chose some worthless altcoin over Bitcoin, then in case the adoption fails, you will be left with nothing. And moreover, people would be hesitant to use altcoins in the first place, as they don't have the reputation which Bitcoin possess.

The adoption of any particular altcoin would multiply several fold if it's adoped by Facebook as currency of choice. They have millions of users, I don't see how adoption can fail. Just ask yourself. If tomorrow there is an official annoucement that Facebook starts using X altcoin as its own currency, wouldn't you buy it? I would buy both hands, and I don't even use Facebook. Not to mention millions of users of Facebook, who would be buying it to conduct their Facebook business. With huge adoption comes high prices and strong mining network. Seems like a no brainer. But I think, the most likely scenario is Facebook will not use any crypto currency, they'll just use their own centralized tokens, purchased for fiat.

Sure, the Price of the Chosen altcoin would go up in the short-term, but that doesn't say much about the Long-term. If the purpose of an altcoin is just to use it on Facebook, why would anybody use it? There is already Facebook-Money(I even saw giftcards in a grocery store, besides giftcards for Amazon)

Not only this, but why would Facebook even take it? They have their own form of money already. The only way they'd think about things like altcoins is if there is enough benefit to them. And then why not just launch their own altcoin?

I don't think, that a cryptocurrency from a big international Company would have much success. The whole Point of cryptocurrency is to take Money out of the control of single entities. If a big Company launches an altcoin they might  put a backdoor somewhere in the code. I wouldn't trust them, and with all the NSA-stuff currently going on, I am for sure not the only one, who thinks so.

If a bit company launched an altcoin, we'd assume that the source would be released. Wouldn't this be enough to ensure that it's safe? I'm sure multiple people would fully evaluate the code and create safe versions (read: versions we trust, by trusted members of the community).

[bryant.coleman]

This is a huge part of why Bitcoin is going to be far ahead of the rest for the time being. The other way to look at it, though, is that any service that accepts Bitcoin could just as easily swap to any other coin since they are all essentially the same (in terms of transfers).

Another point to remember here is that all these altcoins (perhaps with the exception of Litecoin and Namecoin) are exchanged for Bitcoin only. Alt-coin to fiat exchanges don't exist in most cases.

[ranlo]

This is a huge part of why Bitcoin is going to be far ahead of the rest for the time being. The other way to look at it, though, is that any service that accepts Bitcoin could just as easily swap to any other coin since they are all essentially the same (in terms of transfers).

Another point to remember here is that all these altcoins (perhaps with the exception of Litecoin and Namecoin) are exchanged for Bitcoin only. Alt-coin to fiat exchanges don't exist in most cases.

This is true, though I think Cryptsy is trying to bridge that gap. How successful it'll be is anyone's guess, and I'd still say that even with direct altcoin<->fiat conversions, they are still going to be tied to Bitcoin as it's the "go-to" currency.

[turvarya]

If a bit company launched an altcoin, we'd assume that the source would be released. Wouldn't this be enough to ensure that it's safe? I'm sure multiple people would fully evaluate the code and create safe versions (read: versions we trust, by trusted members of the community).

Have you heard about heartbleed? That showed us, that code is not safe, just because it is open.
Now imagine some specialists, who really try to hide a backdoor. It is way easier to build in hidden backdoor camouflaged as a bug, than to find it.
If some years later somebody finds out about that backdoor, they just say "Sorry, it was a bug"

[ranlo]

If a bit company launched an altcoin, we'd assume that the source would be released. Wouldn't this be enough to ensure that it's safe? I'm sure multiple people would fully evaluate the code and create safe versions (read: versions we trust, by trusted members of the community).

Have you heard about heartbleed? That showed us, that code is not safe, just because it is open.
Now imagine some specialists, who really try to hide a backdoor. It is way easier to build in hidden backdoor camouflaged as a bug, than to find it.
If some years later somebody finds out about that backdoor, they just say "Sorry, it was a bug"

In that case we might as well assume that Bitcoin is also bugged and is ready to be exploited at any moment by Satoshi. At the end of the day, there are no guarantees. Worrying about it, when there are people that can work to at least try to keep it from happening, is meaningless. There are far worse things to spend time worrying about.

[turvarya]

If a bit company launched an altcoin, we'd assume that the source would be released. Wouldn't this be enough to ensure that it's safe? I'm sure multiple people would fully evaluate the code and create safe versions (read: versions we trust, by trusted members of the community).

Have you heard about heartbleed? That showed us, that code is not safe, just because it is open.
Now imagine some specialists, who really try to hide a backdoor. It is way easier to build in hidden backdoor camouflaged as a bug, than to find it.
If some years later somebody finds out about that backdoor, they just say "Sorry, it was a bug"

In that case we might as well assume that Bitcoin is also bugged and is ready to be exploited at any moment by Satoshi. At the end of the day, there are no guarantees. Worrying about it, when there are people that can work to at least try to keep it from happening, is meaningless. There are far worse things to spend time worrying about.

The benefit about the bitcoin-Protocoll is, that it is old enough to have a some degree of certainity that a big bug would already have been found.

[Clegg]

I hope they're right, but I'm not so sure it will be bigger than facebook, but it has the potential for sure.

[bryant.coleman]

This is true, though I think Cryptsy is trying to bridge that gap. How successful it'll be is anyone's guess, and I'd still say that even with direct altcoin<->fiat conversions, they are still going to be tied to Bitcoin as it's the "go-to" currency.

Cryptsy is a very small and relatively unknown exchange with limited geographical coverage. This will create enormous challenges to anyone who is seriously interested in using the altcoins.

[fatty_but_happy]

IMO, Bitcoin will be bigger than facebook only if it becomes legalized worldwide

[ranlo]

If a bit company launched an altcoin, we'd assume that the source would be released. Wouldn't this be enough to ensure that it's safe? I'm sure multiple people would fully evaluate the code and create safe versions (read: versions we trust, by trusted members of the community).

Have you heard about heartbleed? That showed us, that code is not safe, just because it is open.
Now imagine some specialists, who really try to hide a backdoor. It is way easier to build in hidden backdoor camouflaged as a bug, than to find it.
If some years later somebody finds out about that backdoor, they just say "Sorry, it was a bug"

In that case we might as well assume that Bitcoin is also bugged and is ready to be exploited at any moment by Satoshi. At the end of the day, there are no guarantees. Worrying about it, when there are people that can work to at least try to keep it from happening, is meaningless. There are far worse things to spend time worrying about.

The benefit about the bitcoin-Protocoll is, that it is old enough to have a some degree of certainity that a big bug would already have been found.

But you brought up SSL. SSL has been around a hell of a lot longer than Bitcoin and was still exploited. Not to mention there are millions more people that utilize SSL and have read over its code than Bitcoin.

[The00Dustin]

If a bit company launched an altcoin, we'd assume that the source would be released. Wouldn't this be enough to ensure that it's safe? I'm sure multiple people would fully evaluate the code and create safe versions (read: versions we trust, by trusted members of the community).

Have you heard about heartbleed? That showed us, that code is not safe, just because it is open.
Now imagine some specialists, who really try to hide a backdoor. It is way easier to build in hidden backdoor camouflaged as a bug, than to find it.
If some years later somebody finds out about that backdoor, they just say "Sorry, it was a bug"

In that case we might as well assume that Bitcoin is also bugged and is ready to be exploited at any moment by Satoshi. At the end of the day, there are no guarantees. Worrying about it, when there are people that can work to at least try to keep it from happening, is meaningless. There are far worse things to spend time worrying about.

The benefit about the bitcoin-Protocoll is, that it is old enough to have a some degree of certainity that a big bug would already have been found.

But you brought up SSL. SSL has been around a hell of a lot longer than Bitcoin and was still exploited. Not to mention there are millions more people that utilize SSL and have read over its code than Bitcoin.

The heartbleed bug has not been around as long as bitcoin has.  If that specific example magically means all bugs can hide for exactly that long (which it clearly doesn't), then a malicious "bug" in bitcoin clearly wasn't planted by satoshi at this point.  Regardless, while this whole discussion has gotten pointless, your logic fails.

[SnakePlisken]

I for one hope they end up being right