Bitcoin - The Libertarian Introduction (a primer on Bitcoin)

[mcorlett]

Maybe it is smarter now and allocates 10K addresses for itself so that you don't need to be backing up all the time.

It does this, only with 100 keys. See wiki: key pool.

[1714930034]

1714930034

[1714930034]

1714930034

[1714930034]

1714930034

[evoorhees]

Maybe it is smarter now and allocates 10K addresses for itself so that you don't need to be backing up all the time.

It does this, only with 100 keys. See wiki: key pool.

Yeah the wallet has 100 addresses ready in its queue - most casual users are not going to use more than this (especially for a crucial savings wallet - it'll probably only have a few addresses used), and I'm quite sure the deterministic wallets will become standard, so the potential problem of which you speak should go away on its own. I was trying to make the article somewhat future-proof (and had to keep it simple), so I didn't delve into nuances like this.

[FreeMoney]

Maybe it is smarter now and allocates 10K addresses for itself so that you don't need to be backing up all the time.

It does this, only with 100 keys. See wiki: key pool.

Yeah the wallet has 100 addresses ready in its queue - most casual users are not going to use more than this (especially for a crucial savings wallet - it'll probably only have a few addresses used), and I'm quite sure the deterministic wallets will become standard, so the potential problem of which you speak should go away on its own. I was trying to make the article somewhat future-proof (and had to keep it simple), so I didn't delve into nuances like this.

100 transactions ever isn't that unlikely. And probably by the time they are putting serious money in and then retrieving their backup they'll be past that. It is sends (new change address) and newly generated payment addresses (used or not, click that button 100 times and your backup won't work from that point).

Maybe devs could change the default to 1000 if bulk generation can/is done smoothly now. But that's still not foolproof.

[evoorhees]

There is always an issue when explaining Bitcoin: thoroughness vs simplicity. One cannot cover every nuance and still retain an audience. For example, I'll typically tell people Bitcoin has "no fees"... which is partly true, but there is a caveat as we all know. But going into every caveat on a first discussion is a great way to alienate the listener, and often too much info all at once has the effect of making the listener absorb less than otherwise.

Bitcoin requires education, and that education has to occur in pieces. This is a challenge we all struggle with daily

[Boussac]

Great article Erik, very inspiring and informative: the best bitcoin primer I have read to date !

Per a comment by Portnoy, I would rather use your second choice of "hydra" as a metaphor for the resilience of bitcoin than a lethal disease.

Overall, it's fun to read because of lines like that one:

"Try fleeing a country with $1,000,000 in bullion without the government knowing about it. Easier said than done. With Bitcoin, it's almost easier done than said"

[PrintCoins]

Maybe it is smarter now and allocates 10K addresses for itself so that you don't need to be backing up all the time.

It does this, only with 100 keys. See wiki: key pool.

Yeah the wallet has 100 addresses ready in its queue - most casual users are not going to use more than this (especially for a crucial savings wallet - it'll probably only have a few addresses used), and I'm quite sure the deterministic wallets will become standard, so the potential problem of which you speak should go away on its own. I was trying to make the article somewhat future-proof (and had to keep it simple), so I didn't delve into nuances like this.

100 transactions ever isn't that unlikely. And probably by the time they are putting serious money in and then retrieving their backup they'll be past that. It is sends (new change address) and newly generated payment addresses (used or not, click that button 100 times and your backup won't work from that point).

Maybe devs could change the default to 1000 if bulk generation can/is done smoothly now. But that's still not foolproof.

Yeah, 1000 isn't that big of a deal, and really 10000 isn't either (as far as storage). This extra bit of data will make it so backups for 99.99% of people would be unneeded, which is awesome.

[Red Emerald]

Maybe it is smarter now and allocates 10K addresses for itself so that you don't need to be backing up all the time.

It does this, only with 100 keys. See wiki: key pool.

Yeah the wallet has 100 addresses ready in its queue - most casual users are not going to use more than this (especially for a crucial savings wallet - it'll probably only have a few addresses used), and I'm quite sure the deterministic wallets will become standard, so the potential problem of which you speak should go away on its own. I was trying to make the article somewhat future-proof (and had to keep it simple), so I didn't delve into nuances like this.

100 transactions ever isn't that unlikely. And probably by the time they are putting serious money in and then retrieving their backup they'll be past that. It is sends (new change address) and newly generated payment addresses (used or not, click that button 100 times and your backup won't work from that point).

Maybe devs could change the default to 1000 if bulk generation can/is done smoothly now. But that's still not foolproof.

Yeah, 1000 isn't that big of a deal, and really 10000 isn't either (as far as storage). This extra bit of data will make it so backups for 99.99% of people would be unneeded, which is awesome.

A backed up deterministic wallets has zero chance of losing funds and is a way more robust solution that just generating 10,000 addresses for the keypool

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Just now getting around to reading it. This is one great article, albeit I did find an error.

Bitcoin is thus the only currency and money system in the world which has no counter-party risk to hold and to transfer. This is absolutely revolutionary and you should read the preceding sentence again. Gold advocates will point out that physical gold bullion has no counter-party risk, but that is only true for storage in your own home. Store it in a vault or bank and you have counter-party risk. And sending gold? You have to trust all sorts of people if you wish to transfer your gold somewhere else or spend it across distance.

Does anybody else see it? Thought not, therefore I'll divulge the faux pas--the font size of this paragraph is smaller than the rest of the text.  

Back to reading.

~Bruno~

EDIT: Just got to the section that has the image of the cock and hen, and realized for the first time that the paragraphs are beautified. Interesting choice!

[Rassah]

+1 Like

[Phinnaeus Gage]

How the hell am I suppose to enjoy reading this diatribe if I keep finding errors. This is the second one found about 3/4 of the page down.

You can assume no government wants you to adopt this system in any capacity, and for that reason alone it's worth consideration by honest, moral, and industrious people.

(or is it: ...wants you adopting this system...?)

Damn, I enjoy this article so, so much.

~Bruno~

[evoorhees]

How the hell am I suppose to enjoy reading this diatribe if I keep finding errors. This is the second one found about 3/4 of the page down.

You can assume no government wants you to adopt this system in any capacity, and for that reason alone it's worth consideration by honest, moral, and industrious people.

(or is it: ...wants you adopting this system...?)

Damn, I enjoy this article so, so much.

~Bruno~

Are you drunk Bruno?

[rjk]

How the hell am I suppose to enjoy reading this diatribe if I keep finding errors. This is the second one found about 3/4 of the page down.

You can assume no government wants you to adopt this system in any capacity, and for that reason alone it's worth consideration by honest, moral, and industrious people.

(or is it: ...wants you adopting this system...?)

Damn, I enjoy this article so, so much.

~Bruno~

What's incorrect about that?

[Phinnaeus Gage]

How the hell am I suppose to enjoy reading this diatribe if I keep finding errors. This is the second one found about 3/4 of the page down.

You can assume no government wants you to adopt this system in any capacity, and for that reason alone it's worth consideration by honest, moral, and industrious people.

(or is it: ...wants you adopting this system...?)

Damn, I enjoy this article so, so much.

~Bruno~

What's incorrect about that?

I added the to, for it was missing. But I am asking if "to" should be included. I, in no way, am being hyper-critical by commenting on the grammar or spelling. On the contrary, I find this so well written, that if I, not a seasoned wordsmith, can improve upon it by pointing out such ONE minor error, than I feel I've contributed my share to Bitcoin. And another thing--only Matthew is allowed to ask if I've been drinking.  

Again, this is a great article, evoorhees. You're my favorite writer on this forum.

~Bruno~

[rjk]

I added the to, for it was missing.

Oh I get it now, sorry!

[Phinnaeus Gage]

I added the to, for it was missing.

Oh I get it now, sorry!

No prob, rjk. A mentor of mine (RIP) once asked me to write a sentence that he was about to utter. He uttered it. I couldn't write it. Here is that sentence where one word (phonically written in bold) couldn't be written: There are three 2's in the English language. Although this sentence can be uttered (on an utter kick  ), it can't be written so that it's grammatically correct, for which one of the following would you use: 2; two; to; or too?

I think it's only fitting to post this piece on the 5th most visited libertarian website, right?  

http://www.dailypaul.com/226936/if-the-government-hates-it-dont-you-think-you-should-at-least-consider-learning-about-it

I just visited this site, and was taken aback while reading the negative comments. Am I correct in stating that these folks who have a clue, don't have a clue?

~Bruno~

[gnar1ta$]

Nice work Erik.  Please leave a link when the next interview airs.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Furthermore, Erik is also a partner in a couple top-secret super-subversive Bitcoin-based projects...

Let me guess the URL: bitcoin.com?

~Bruno~

[evoorhees]

LOL well thank you Bruno, I've made the change according to your recommended edit.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

LOL well thank you Bruno, I've made the change according to your recommended edit.

And you thught I was am dwinkking! Now itss pefecck. Hic!

[weex]

The Freedom's Phoenix issue that includes this article is now available at coinDL: https://www.coindl.com/page/item/123