Bitcoin Core Developer says Bitcoin Too Fragile and in its Infancy

[counter]

Hilarious to claim(vaguely) that    Bitcoin Dev is not a believer in Bitcoin..  Where do you come up with stuff?  If he breaks down his opinion on Bitcoin and says it not perfect then say that but don't try and make it seem like he doesn't believe in Bitcon because that is exactly what I took form the OP.  The Dev's have said in the past Bitcoin needs real work and time invested into it so we all know it's not perfect.  Many things could be better but that doesn't change the benefits it already brings to it's users.  I just find this thread to be misleading, and don't know what the point is unless you're trying to have a discussion on ways Bitcoin could be improved?  

[BitcoinBadger]

Good point . bitcoin is still in its infancy , but technically it's not fragile .

Bitcoin is in fact highly anti-fragile.

Different people different height of thoughts.We must accept bitcoin is a currency evolved out of vain the fragility of these things can just be guessed so simply,as its has peaked up so easily it could go down more simpler

[coinits]

For bitcoin to be able to go any further I do agree that it does need more demand and that is going to take a while. I would not say that it's not possible for bitcoin to go far just that it needs more work and more demand.

In order for demand to increase one thing that needs to be fixed is how to do a transaction quickly. Another thread on here discusses the impractically of using it for day to day life like you can with cash, debit, or credit. The person wanted to pay his bar tab and the bar wants tips on a separate transaction. He had to sit and wait for 10 minutes for the first one to process.

Bitcoin has a long way to go to get there.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=758927.0

[Gleb Gamow]

Watched the video, not sure where he said anything negative about Bitcoin.

He's merely talking from a developers perspective, and cites the "Malleability issue" when Mt. Gox lost all those coins.

Basically talking code problems when a technology is just 5 years in.

Now, I'm about to watch this video to hear for myself this "Malleability issue" that took down Mt Gox.

[hhanh00]

Most people don't know or don't want to know that Bitcoin software is still beta quality. There are very few core developpers (~3?, 1 full time and paid) and very difficult code to design and write.
We shouldn't confuse the ideas of bitcoin as described by Satoshi in his seminal whitepaper with the actual implementation. Mike wants to remind all of us that there is a lot of work to do. The malleability issue is a good example. The problem was known for years to the guys who worked closely on the core. But again, that's very few people. MtGox implemented their account tracking and they didn't take it into consideration. Someone took advantage of it and scammed them.  Surely not as much as they claim though. In another case, someone found out an integer overflow in the code and used it to create a transaction that generated billions of bitcoins. The blockchain had to be rolled back and all transactions cancelled. Imagine what kind of disaster that would be now. Also, the network code could be overwhelmed by DDOS, or the network split. I could go on and on but I see the drift.

In short, there are many many many very tough software challenges. They are not impossible to solve. But he warns us that they lack resources to fix them and hence we are at a point where mass adoption could very well destroy bitcoin now.

[johncarpe64]

For bitcoin to be able to go any further I do agree that it does need more demand and that is going to take a while. I would not say that it's not possible for bitcoin to go far just that it needs more work and more demand.

In order for demand to increase one thing that needs to be fixed is how to do a transaction quickly. Another thread on here discusses the impractically of using it for day to day life like you can with cash, debit, or credit. The person wanted to pay his bar tab and the bar wants tips on a separate transaction. He had to sit and wait for 10 minutes for the first one to process.

Bitcoin has a long way to go to get there.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=758927.0

This person's issue was related to the wallet he was using not anything specific to bitcoin itself. It is possible (and common) to spend inputs from an unconfirmed transaction.

Additionally, for most transactions the amount of time it takes to be sure enough that a TX will be confirmed without having an excess amount of risk is very small, generally under 10 seconds, as once a transaction is properly propagated it is very difficult to double spend any of the same inputs (without spending a lot of money). 

[hhanh00]

It's very risky to accept a transaction that uses inputs from an unconfirmed transaction so we shouldn't expect businesses to do so.

[digitalindustry]

to all those constantly say Bitcoin will take over the world and to the moon,
check out video interview with Mike Hearn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMIzMVABFxQ#t=135

~CfA~

There will always be critics, these people are the same type of people that are talking down the economic recovery that is happening in the West as well.

the fact is that Bitcoin has no flaws, the only implementations it needs are the Global ID and the Central Authority and this will bring the large Business players off the sidelines and get Bitcoin way back up to the level its should be, i mean think about it ....

there are only 21 Million !

in theory Bitcoin should be trading at 10,000 its only this Central authority and the Global ID, the Central Authority can properly secure the monopoly and the ID system will ensure no double spends.

basically the perfect Digital money.

[jbreher]

Jeebus. Not this again.

the fact is that Bitcoin has no flaws, the only implementations it needs are the Global ID and the Central Authority

'Bitcoin is perfect! All it needs is to abandon its most essential characteristic - its decentralized nature!'

 

Moving on...

Devs develop. It's kinda 'what they do'. If the code was in an ideal state, development would cease. It would no longer have developers. Yeah, that's a tautology. But is seems that some must be told this essential fact.

Of course the primary developers see room for improvement. Otherwise it wouldn't need devs.

[Nagle]

Technically, the big problems with Bitcoin in its existing form are:
- Confirmations are too slow.
- The block chain is too big.
- Micropayments are too expensive to process.
- Mining is too centralized.

All are technically fixable, and fixes have been proposed. All of those, though, are incompatible with the present blockchain.

[BitcoinGirl325]

It's always possible that Ethereum might have a brighter future than Bitcoin? Small & nimble development team, rebuilding the idea of a blockchain based on the limitations of Bitcoin's blockchain, and now they have $15 million to put towards development.

[counter]

It's always possible that Ethereum might have a brighter future than Bitcoin? Small & nimble development team, rebuilding the idea of a blockchain based on the limitations of Bitcoin's blockchain, and now they have $15 million to put towards development.

I'm already not liking the how this coin is coming on to the scene but I wish all the early investors all the best of luck along with the development team.  All I would like is a solid coin that is worth investing into for the long term.  Tired of all these alts that are not made to last long term and not doing anything for the progression of the coins overall or the communities that use and support them. 

[gonnafly]

With due respect to Mike, the human element is what ultimately makes bitcoin resilient. No matter what current problems exist, there is a huge body of people with incentives & knowhow to keep bitcoin going.

Real world example: March 2013 chain fork recovery. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0050.mediawiki

Theoretical example: If the core SHA256 hashing algorithm is compromised, software cannot automatically recover from that. It will be humans who decide the best course of action for the network to take. It will be other humans who evaluate that judgement, and agree (by downloading & using new software) or disagree.

[CokeCoin]

Every time I hear this story I wonder.. Why aren't big vested partners -- like Coinbase, BitPay, etc. -- in the bitcoin space are not doing more to address development.

[GTA]

Every time I hear this story I wonder.. Why aren't big vested partners -- like Coinbase, BitPay, etc. -- in the bitcoin space are not doing more to address development.

I agree, they have a lot of pull and skin in the game. It is in their best interest for bitcoin to succeed.
They should team up and set up a bitcoin lab or a site for promoting development like other big brands do for various causes and technologies.

[Summer,69]

Every time I hear this story I wonder.. Why aren't big vested partners -- like Coinbase, BitPay, etc. -- in the bitcoin space are not doing more to address development.

Bitpay pays jgarzik to work full time on core development. You're right about the others of course.

[desired_username]

Technically, the big problems with Bitcoin in its existing form are:
- Confirmations are too slow.
- The block chain is too big.
- Micropayments are too expensive to process.
- Mining is too centralized.

All are technically fixable, and fixes have been proposed. All of those, though, are incompatible with the present blockchain.

To be honest I think this is the list of the most overhyped problems.

- Confirmations - slow for what scenario? propagation is almost instant, confirmation is faster than any previous system.

- Big for your 20GB hard drive and ADSL connection?

- Micropayments - again, show me an other system which is unlimited, independent and has lower fees?

- Mining centralization - as always if it gets centralized people will vote with their "wallets"

I really hope the devs won't rush any changes. With a project like this everything has to be tested and thought through properly.

[hhanh00]

With due respect to Mike, the human element is what ultimately makes bitcoin resilient. No matter what current problems exist, there is a huge body of people with incentives & knowhow to keep bitcoin going.

Real world example: March 2013 chain fork recovery. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0050.mediawiki

Theoretical example: If the core SHA256 hashing algorithm is compromised, software cannot automatically recover from that. It will be humans who decide the best course of action for the network to take. It will be other humans who evaluate that judgement, and agree (by downloading & using new software) or disagree.

But while we figure it out, the entire system is offline and what does the economy do in the meantime?

[Beliathon]

What exactly are the requirements to be labeled as a "Bitcoin Core Developer"? They seem pretty minimal to me. Either that or people are just trying to lend extra credence to Hearn's words.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/graphs/contributors

Perhaps "contributor" would be more honest.

Too true. For those who can't find him on the list, it's because he's way down at #81. Do an edit -> find "hearn"

For bitcoin to be able to go any further I do agree that it does need more demand and that is going to take a while.

Recommended watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHUPPYzzZrI

Look at the remittances market, that alone is worth over 500 billion a year. And mark my words, Bitcoin will eat every penny. You know why? Because Western Union and the others are parasites who steal 20-30% of the money they process. 20-30%! It's outrageously greedy price-gouging highway robbery.
How long until people realize they are needlessly throwing their hard-earned money - and these are POOR people we're talking about here - down the toilet? They will ALL switch to bitcoin, just like EVERYONE stopped using Blockbuster video to pay $5 for one movie rental once Netflix came online.
This will happen sooner rather than later, because people prefer to have money rather than throw it away.
--> http://www.coindesk.com/philippines-startups-fulfil-bitcoins-remittance-promise/

Iran exports around 200 thousand barrels of oil to China every day. That's $20 million worth of oil being exported every day. The Iranian and Chinese are not idiots. So there is or will emerge at some point a HUGE MARKET DEMAND for being able to transact $20 million of value in cyberspace every day.
The daily volume currently traded in Bitcoin is MINISCULE relative to the potential volume. A tiny fraction of a fraction of it's potential use-cases. Ask yourself how much the bitcoin price would have to rise to make the daily volume $20 billion, for example.

Now look at cash transfers in Africa, look at MPESA, http://www.economist.com/blogs/baobab/2014/06/cash-transfers-africa
Look at the situation in Argentina. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e__m-w4N7NI

Point is, there's a cornucopia of industries, services, dire situations, and absolutely awful inflated, worthless fiat-scrip currencies just BEGGING to be swallowed up by Bitcoin.

The only question for each of them, is when. Not if, when.

[QuestionAuthority]

With due respect to Mike, the human element is what ultimately makes bitcoin resilient. No matter what current problems exist, there is a huge body of people with incentives & knowhow to keep bitcoin going.

Real world example: March 2013 chain fork recovery. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0050.mediawiki

Theoretical example: If the core SHA256 hashing algorithm is compromised, software cannot automatically recover from that. It will be humans who decide the best course of action for the network to take. It will be other humans who evaluate that judgement, and agree (by downloading & using new software) or disagree.

But while we figure it out, the entire system is offline and what does the economy do in the meantime?

If the software protocol (rule set) is broken or not working effectively enough then you need to stop all connections and implement a change. Bitcoin is a set of rules that connects clients together to make magic happen because all the clients know what to do and they do it all by the rules that are set up. You may have a little thing that needs to be fixed that is in the wrapper. You have to stop everyone's connection (shut down the network) put in your little fix (give everyone worldwide a new copy of the fix) and then restart everyone. If the change is small and you tested it well for every outcome then we all march along happily ever after. What if the change is big? What if the base set of rules that make your release work needs to be changed because it was broken from the start? Your little test net group most likely won't be big enough to discover every problem and everyone around the world will be running a broken Bitcoin. What the economy will do in meantime is sit static waiting for the fix. There will be issues that can't be corrected because it's to late the damage is done (think Mt Gox - malleability). But what are the draw backs of not fixing the problem, not taking the risk? Then you end up with an even bigger problem because your are shutting down an even larger economy that can have even more damage done and even more lost money. There is no logical choice other than to fix the problems now and that's not really a good choice it's just the only thing you can do. That's the problem with letting this little experiment get so large before you fix big issues.

As a dev when you work at a big company then you benefit from a group of sometimes thousands of computer scientists and software engineers working on the same problems. We have a test-net and a handful of volunteer and paid professional and semiprofessional programmers some working only part time. They have done a great job so far making sure that things stay running and fixed but they have a working disadvantage. Bitcoin has been balancing on the edge of sword since it's release. You need a lot of users to drum up interest in development and you need a lot of developers before you have a lot of users spend money.