Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 12:07:24 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin concept is groundless TECHNICALLY..this article says..Can anyone defend?  (Read 9084 times)
goatpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330

Armory Developer


View Profile
May 18, 2011, 11:13:16 AM
 #21

Quote
Such a system is not “decentralized”, but more like a “replicated center” system, as there is an absolute necessity to gather all the existing data in a single point to make any meaningful operation. Partial knowledge does not work. The authors describe those full nodes as “super-peers” saying that

No. The system is decentralized in that the latest produced block is verified by every node by computing the hash themselves with the received nonce. It get exponentially harder to try and modify transactions that are deeper in the block chain. The concept of decentralization is that no node accepts any new data from the network as a given. It will verify the hash and react independently of other nodes. Previously network wide accepted blocks are considered valid by default since the computing power needed to change them quickly becomes astronomical.

Partial knowledge can easily work. Only propagate up to the last back up block to the light weight clients.

Quote
Thus, Bitcoin is only “peer-to-peer” in the sense of the British Peerage system. Bitcoin “commoners” must appeal to their “lords” who have sufficient means to judge on validity of transactions and to seal those transactions as valid, likely for a fee.

Once again no, each client reacts independently to the data newly propagated. Data deeper in the block chain is valid by that same process.

Quote
Thus, for perfect anonymity, both sender and receiver have to split every complex transaction among separate pairs of throw-away identities. But at this point, transactions stop being technically atomic, in addition to the fact that the system becomes quite complicated and heavyweight.

Yeah like someone obsessed with anonymity won't come up with an automated software to do that... There's barely any extra weight on the system. Block hashing is independent of transaction size. The space required to store those extra bits of data is perfectly in line with the network capitalization.

There are transaction fees. Those who truly want to become anonymous by splitting down their transactions have to pay higher fees. It is only fair and sensible.

Quote
those “honest” nodes need to burn maximum amounts of energy continuously, round the clock, 24x365, just to keep the system afloat. Not green at all!

Silly argument proven wrong 20 times over. Move on, nothing to see.

Quote
Meanwhile, an attacker may only mobilize his CPU power temporarily to carry out his deeds.

I'd like to understand who would bother buying up 50% of the network hashrate, getting that steady BTC daily reward, to then shoot himself in the foot by forking the chain in order to "make a profit out of double spending". That's nonsensical. The system is built so that rewards for trying to cheat the system provide less return than simply contributing to it.

The only valid motive for an attack on Bitcoin is to outright hurt or attempt to take down the system. The defense against that is that the network is maintained by mining, and as it grows mining gets more profitable, effectively increasing by leaps and bounds the amount of wealth a single individual has to invest to take it over. That's like one guy trying to stop the rest of the planet from switching to gold. As the group of adopters is small, he can bully it with an AK. But that's the only time he can hope to attack it. By the time Bitcoin gets big enough that haters will want to target, it'll take them the equivalent of an H bomb to do it on their own. Of course if the whole government wants to go after Bitcoin, that's another story. But still I'd like to understand how people can use gold if the gov sends out the military to kill on sight whoever uses it.

Quote
Meanwhile, his victims need either to check the full transaction history and all the pending transactions (in the world), and/or wait sufficient time (10 min to 1 hour) till the transaction in question is reliably settled in the transaction history.

Yeah while you shit your pants hoping that guy who payed you with his credit card isn't going to charge you back in the span of the whole WEEK after the payment. Gimme a break.

Quote
Potentially, a CPU-rich well-connected peer may delay his newly created block till a competing block is received

Not exactly. The block header is built off of the hash of the previous block. For that attack to work you need to propagate that "held" block from the opposite end of the network.

Quote
A sufficiently CPU-rich attacker may perpetuate this tie indefinitely, potentially making the network to flip-flop between two branches of transaction history, with somewhat unclear consequences. Such a process will create side effects of mass transaction rollbacks, implicit status changes of pending transactions and coin creation/disappearance.

Coins don't disappear, period. The fact that the network maintains the fork until one of the branches is proven valid is so that no valid transaction is lost. If the attacker includes fake transactions, those will go away as the block is turned down by the network. He can mix up those with some valid transactions to have these bounced back too, sure. What we are looking at here is a huge amount of dedicated power for the sole purpose of being a b**** to the network. The only effect will be to slow down the network.

Quote
As you might see, the claims laid by Bitcoin are far from definite. In terms of peertopeerness, privacy, security and usability it might actually turn worse than the present-day real-world legacy banking system. Here and now (Netherlands, 2011) I enjoy an instant, secure, privacy-preserving payment system which charges no fees for domestic transfers

Rofl.

Quote
BitTorrent is technologically complicated, infrastructure-wise inefficient, much less usable than a regular Web download, etc.

How many http servers do you know with terabytes worth of copyright infringing content on it that is free to access anywhere in the world while providing top speed to all its users? Please name one... And despite all the efforts of the music, movie, gaming industry AND the US government, BitTorrent is still out there, working flawlessly.

Also, where's the DoS argument in this piece?

 

btcarmory.com
1481198844
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481198844

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481198844
Reply with quote  #2

1481198844
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481198844
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481198844

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481198844
Reply with quote  #2

1481198844
Report to moderator
1481198844
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481198844

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481198844
Reply with quote  #2

1481198844
Report to moderator
1481198844
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481198844

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481198844
Reply with quote  #2

1481198844
Report to moderator
Cryptoman
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728



View Profile
May 18, 2011, 12:56:58 PM
 #22

Quote
As you might see, the claims laid by Bitcoin are far from definite. In terms of peertopeerness, privacy, security and usability it might actually turn worse than the present-day real-world legacy banking system. Here and now (Netherlands, 2011) I enjoy an instant, secure, privacy-preserving payment system which charges no fees for domestic transfers

I'd say that it's the claims laid by the author that are dubious.  Does he really think that nobody, not even the government, can determine the balance in his account or to whom payments were made?  That's quite a nice system those Netherlanders have!   Roll Eyes

"A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history." --Gandhi
Mike Hearn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526


View Profile
May 18, 2011, 04:00:00 PM
 #23

It's not accurate because the author doesn't know about the TFTP.

If he did he would not state that his banking system is private, as it's not possible to do electronic payments (of any form) today without the US government finding out about it. This is true for Europeans as well. I don't know anyone who would consider such a payment system to be private.
wumpus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798

No Maps for These Territories


View Profile
May 18, 2011, 04:45:03 PM
 #24

Honestly, I couldn't care less if Europeans use Bitcoin or not.
Yeah, because we all know that none of us West-Europeans are using bitcoin at all Tongue A lot of us would also like for the world of banking to be disrupted. Especially for doing business internationally it's way too complicated right now to take payments. For me, it has little to do with trusting or not trusting the government... Today's more and more globalized world needs something better than the current patchwork of toll-taking banks.



Bitcoin Core developer [PGP] Warning: For most, coin loss is a larger risk than coin theft. A disk can die any time. Regularly back up your wallet through FileBackup Wallet to an external storage or the (encrypted!) cloud. Use a separate offline wallet for storing larger amounts.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
May 18, 2011, 05:50:20 PM
 #25

Honestly, I couldn't care less if Europeans use Bitcoin or not.
Yeah, because we all know that none of us West-Europeans are using bitcoin at all Tongue A lot of us would also like for the world of banking to be disrupted. Especially for doing business internationally it's way too complicated right now to take payments. For me, it has little to do with trusting or not trusting the government... Today's more and more globalized world needs something better than the current patchwork of toll-taking banks.

I said, in general.  There are statist Americans and there are classicly liberal Europeans.  In the present state of things, however, Europeans tend to trust their governments.  That's just the cycle of things.  60 years ago Americans tended to have the trust of government intentions and Europeans didn't.  This is reasonable considering that the US had just recently won a World War that was started by European governments screwing with each other.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
trentzb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406


View Profile
May 18, 2011, 05:52:26 PM
 #26

Quote
As you might see, the claims laid by Bitcoin are far from definite. In terms of peertopeerness, privacy, security and usability it might actually turn worse than the present-day real-world legacy banking system. Here and now (Netherlands, 2011) I enjoy an instant, secure, privacy-preserving payment system which charges no fees for domestic transfers

I'd say that it's the claims laid by the author that are dubious.  Does he really think that nobody, not even the government, can determine the balance in his account or to whom payments were made?  That's quite a nice system those Netherlanders have!   Roll Eyes

I also noted when he mentioned that "I enjoy an instant, secure, privacy-preserving payment system" that he was oblivious to privacy issues. I didn't bother reading the article after catching that quote on this topic.

Is it true that he believes when he connects to a SSL payment processing site, makes a phone call or appears in person to initiate a payment/transfer that he hasn't leaked any private data? If so, well...good luck with that.
goatpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330

Armory Developer


View Profile
May 18, 2011, 05:53:08 PM
 #27

The deflation argument needs to be attacked.  It's so widespread, people are so scared of it.  The really question we need to ask is "so?"  And see why people actually think its bad.  The problem is most people think of wealth as currency.  Wealth is not currency.  Wealth is goods and services that people value.  Currency is only something that people redeem for such things.  If people are not buying something, then they are leaving it available to be purchased by someone else for cheaper.  Or they are investing which means that they are delaying their redeeming it for a later time when more should be available (after the investment actually increases the economy).  Investment is a great thing and should be encouraged.  A deflationary currency will encourage sound investments.

It's a tough one to get at. People are culturally used to debt based economies, which would suffer horribly from deflation. There's just no way around it, some people won't admit to it until Bitcoins are worth $1000, and even then some will oppose it. You should have noticed that most of the hate for Bitcoin has poured in since its exponential growth triggered around early April. That's people downtalking the feasibility of the Bitcoin projec after it successfully took its first step. This kind of response is emotional.

btcarmory.com
tomcollins
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182


View Profile
May 18, 2011, 05:53:57 PM
 #28

Honestly, I couldn't care less if Europeans use Bitcoin or not.
Yeah, because we all know that none of us West-Europeans are using bitcoin at all Tongue A lot of us would also like for the world of banking to be disrupted. Especially for doing business internationally it's way too complicated right now to take payments. For me, it has little to do with trusting or not trusting the government... Today's more and more globalized world needs something better than the current patchwork of toll-taking banks.

I said, in general.  There are statist Americans and there are classicly liberal Europeans.  In the present state of things, however, Europeans tend to trust their governments.  That's just the cycle of things.  60 years ago Americans tended to have the trust of government intentions and Europeans didn't.  This is reasonable considering that the US had just recently won a World War that was started by European governments screwing with each other.

I'd be surprised if Europeans didn't have more trust in their governments even 60 years ago.

Part of it is cultural - if you have a pretty consistent culture over a long period of time with not a lot of mixing, conformist tendencies tend to be greater.

The type of person who came to the US as an immigrant (from anywhere) is someone who is not content with their lifestyle and is willing to actually do something about it.  People who moved west to a new area where there was uncertainty took a lot of risk and only is going to be popular among certain personality traits.
goatpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330

Armory Developer


View Profile
May 18, 2011, 05:55:51 PM
 #29

I said, in general.  There are statist Americans and there are classicly liberal Europeans.  In the present state of things, however, Europeans tend to trust their governments.  That's just the cycle of things.  60 years ago Americans tended to have the trust of government intentions and Europeans didn't.  This is reasonable considering that the US had just recently won a World War that was started by European governments screwing with each other.

He has a point. It is simply taboo to root for reduced government power in France. The first reaction people have to any kind of issue is "what is the government doing about it?"

btcarmory.com
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
May 18, 2011, 05:57:32 PM
 #30


I'd be surprised if Europeans didn't have more trust in their governments even 60 years ago.

Part of it is cultural -

I concede a cultural aspect.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
tomcollins
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182


View Profile
May 18, 2011, 05:59:37 PM
 #31

I said, in general.  There are statist Americans and there are classicly liberal Europeans.  In the present state of things, however, Europeans tend to trust their governments.  That's just the cycle of things.  60 years ago Americans tended to have the trust of government intentions and Europeans didn't.  This is reasonable considering that the US had just recently won a World War that was started by European governments screwing with each other.

He has a point. It is simply taboo to root for reduced government power in France. The first reaction people have to any kind of issue is "what is the government doing about it?"

That's not terribly different than 90% Americans today.
BitcoinStars.com
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


View Profile
May 18, 2011, 06:02:33 PM
 #32

technically bitcoin may not be perfect. who ever said it was. ill take it over fiat trash.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
May 18, 2011, 06:04:26 PM
 #33

I said, in general.  There are statist Americans and there are classicly liberal Europeans.  In the present state of things, however, Europeans tend to trust their governments.  That's just the cycle of things.  60 years ago Americans tended to have the trust of government intentions and Europeans didn't.  This is reasonable considering that the US had just recently won a World War that was started by European governments screwing with each other.

He has a point. It is simply taboo to root for reduced government power in France. The first reaction people have to any kind of issue is "what is the government doing about it?"

That's not terribly different than 90% Americans today.

You just pulled that number from your anal regions.  I doubt that it's anywhere near that high.  The Advocates for Self-Government says that their "World's Smallest Political Quiz" implies that libertarians are roughly 30% of the tested population.  If that is remotely representative, it's not even possible for more than 70% of Americans to default to "what is the government going to do about it".

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
dvide
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 59



View Profile
May 18, 2011, 06:10:22 PM
 #34

It's an interesting article.  I think each of his four points are true.  However, the conclusions he draws from them are mostly incorrect.
Think you posted on the wrong thread tom Tongue

You want this one:
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=8720.0
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
May 18, 2011, 06:12:52 PM
 #35

Bitcoin us "pure money". Somehow most of those blogging troglodytes critique it for lack of properties which money do not really have to have and ignore bitcoins properties which make it such a great currency.

It is just like ostracising Linux kernel for not having SAMBA or LDAP or some other similar service in the kernel itself. It's freaking windows mentality, i.e. GUI must be in the kernel. The word is narrowminded.


Amen.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
goatpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330

Armory Developer


View Profile
May 18, 2011, 06:28:48 PM
 #36

I said, in general.  There are statist Americans and there are classicly liberal Europeans.  In the present state of things, however, Europeans tend to trust their governments.  That's just the cycle of things.  60 years ago Americans tended to have the trust of government intentions and Europeans didn't.  This is reasonable considering that the US had just recently won a World War that was started by European governments screwing with each other.

He has a point. It is simply taboo to root for reduced government power in France. The first reaction people have to any kind of issue is "what is the government doing about it?"

That's not terribly different than 90% Americans today.

I had a much different impression. The Tea Party push during last elections was big enough that every French channel talk about it at least once. Compared to this, the most extreme rightist French economists could be considered communists.

btcarmory.com
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
May 18, 2011, 06:30:08 PM
 #37

I said, in general.  There are statist Americans and there are classicly liberal Europeans.  In the present state of things, however, Europeans tend to trust their governments.  That's just the cycle of things.  60 years ago Americans tended to have the trust of government intentions and Europeans didn't.  This is reasonable considering that the US had just recently won a World War that was started by European governments screwing with each other.

He has a point. It is simply taboo to root for reduced government power in France. The first reaction people have to any kind of issue is "what is the government doing about it?"

That's not terribly different than 90% Americans today.

I had a much different impression. The Tea Party push during last elections was big enough that every French channel talk about it at least once. Compared to this, the most extreme rightist French economists could be considered communists.

That's because the most extreme "rightist" economists from France are communists.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
tomcollins
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182


View Profile
May 18, 2011, 06:35:52 PM
 #38

I said, in general.  There are statist Americans and there are classicly liberal Europeans.  In the present state of things, however, Europeans tend to trust their governments.  That's just the cycle of things.  60 years ago Americans tended to have the trust of government intentions and Europeans didn't.  This is reasonable considering that the US had just recently won a World War that was started by European governments screwing with each other.

He has a point. It is simply taboo to root for reduced government power in France. The first reaction people have to any kind of issue is "what is the government doing about it?"

That's not terribly different than 90% Americans today.

I had a much different impression. The Tea Party push during last elections was big enough that every French channel talk about it at least once. Compared to this, the most extreme rightist French economists could be considered communists.

The Tea Party was originally formed as an anti-government group, but was quickly corrupted by mainstream politicians to advance anti-Democrat position.  It went from a "small government" group to a "we hate Barack Obama" group very quickly.  A huge number of Tea Party supporters now also think George W. Bush was a good president.  They like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, love Social Security and Medicare, and want the government to make sure people live upstanding lifestyles.  That is far from what it's original principles were.


I said, in general.  There are statist Americans and there are classicly liberal Europeans.  In the present state of things, however, Europeans tend to trust their governments.  That's just the cycle of things.  60 years ago Americans tended to have the trust of government intentions and Europeans didn't.  This is reasonable considering that the US had just recently won a World War that was started by European governments screwing with each other.

He has a point. It is simply taboo to root for reduced government power in France. The first reaction people have to any kind of issue is "what is the government doing about it?"

That's not terribly different than 90% Americans today.

You just pulled that number from your anal regions.  I doubt that it's anywhere near that high.  The Advocates for Self-Government says that their "World's Smallest Political Quiz" implies that libertarians are roughly 30% of the tested population.  If that is remotely representative, it's not even possible for more than 70% of Americans to default to "what is the government going to do about it".

That quiz is biased to get a lot of people identified as libertarians.  It's by design that it's high.  That doesn't mean they are actually libertarian.
gigitrix
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490


Bitcoins finest!!!


View Profile
May 18, 2011, 06:45:01 PM
 #39

Bitcoin us "pure money". Somehow most of those blogging troglodytes critique it for lack of properties which money do not really have to have and ignore bitcoins properties which make it such a great currency.

It is just like ostracising Linux kernel for not having SAMBA or LDAP or some other similar service in the kernel itself. It's freaking windows mentality, i.e. GUI must be in the kernel. The word is narrowminded.


You came up with the perfect analogy! We're currently riding the "backbone" of bitcoin right now, but in the future it's entirely likely that we'll be abstracted some layers from this. It's the whole "supernodes" thing again with processing transactions: the point isn't that everyone can do everything, but that no-one actually controls everything!
berlin
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
May 18, 2011, 06:57:25 PM
 #40

This thread would be much better if there was less political posts to wade through looking for the actual rebuttals. Bitcoin is very good tech, all the wanky political assertions and theories and sweeping statements should get out and leave the way clear for the technical and economical talk.

However I beleive there is an Off Topic forum...
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!