Can anyone speak to this video? Critical of Bitcoin

[bitlizard]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQoykhNoBbY

[1714063865]

1714063865

[1714063865]

1714063865

[1714063865]

1714063865

[Vladimir]

Watched this for the second time. That guy has a habit of failing distinguishing between bugs and features. If you listen carefully most things he mentions as supposedly negative are actually positive for Bitcoin. In his Bitcoin part of talk about 80% of whatever he say is actually positive for Bitcoin, just delivered in a snide fashion.

Some huge "bugs" he mentioned are so not a big deal.

For example, his attack on scalability has as starting condition "if they operate VISA size network" and conclusion oh they would need to buy 1TB storage per week. Do you think VISA sized network could afford buying a few HDD's per day (even assuming that storage tech freezes forever now)?

In effect this is a hostile and qualified analysis that could not come up with anything more substantial than Ben's face in blockchain. This is the best he could come up with.

[paulie_w]

i don't think this was critical in the wrong ways.

he might be right about bitcoin supernodes becoming basically "Banks" once it scales (meaning, those are the points where the blockchain is stored and validated)

if I understood him correctly, he's also saying there is a problem with identity leakage when validating transactions, ie: the "connect to every node in the world and see who makes the first move" thing. It's a good point.

i'm not sure if he is correct about using Tor not working for inbound connections. i didn't know that was the case, if so and would like developer commentary on it.

ps: bitcoinfs -- whoa! that's what wikileaks should be right there.

[sadpandatech]

that dude is a fucking douch bag. He had me thinking "oh wow, some insanely smart, nearly autistic type talking about really indepth shit that is way over my head". And then he said,

" http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=gQoykhNoBbY#t=1305s    "


his technical point he is leading up to is that Bitcoin failed at anonymity, or at least the devs did. And they did so because of 'nodes' all relaying.


For those that were under the misconception that Bitcoin was ever thought by the Devs to be completely anon, then you have some homework to do.

Start here;
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tor

[Etlase2]

For example, his attack on scalability has as starting condition "if they operate VISA size network" and conclusion oh they would need to buy 1TB storage per week. Do you think VISA sized network could afford buying a few HDD's per day (even assuming that storage tech freezes forever now)?

Uh sure if there's 1 node, unfortunately this is a problem that every node has to deal with. I can't possibly imagine how someone who works on bitcoin magazine and has 2,300 posts and I think his own bitcoin message board too would not understand the difference.

[mb300sd]

For example, his attack on scalability has as starting condition "if they operate VISA size network" and conclusion oh they would need to buy 1TB storage per week. Do you think VISA sized network could afford buying a few HDD's per day (even assuming that storage tech freezes forever now)?

Uh sure if there's 1 node, unfortunately this is a problem that every node has to deal with. I can't possibly imagine how someone who works on bitcoin magazine and has 2,300 posts and I think his own bitcoin message board too would not understand the difference.

Give it a couple years. I have a feeling that we'll have 100TB hard drives commonly available before scaling to Visa sizes... I have no issues buying a new HDD every year to support the network. I also torrent about 100GB/week anyway, connections speeds should have increased by then as well.

[sadpandatech]

For example, his attack on scalability has as starting condition "if they operate VISA size network" and conclusion oh they would need to buy 1TB storage per week. Do you think VISA sized network could afford buying a few HDD's per day (even assuming that storage tech freezes forever now)?

Uh sure if there's 1 node, unfortunately this is a problem that every node has to deal with. I can't possibly imagine how someone who works on bitcoin magazine and has 2,300 posts and I think his own bitcoin message board too would not understand the difference.

Give it a couple years. I have a feeling that we'll have 100TB hard drives commonly available before scaling to Visa sizes... I have no issues buying a new HDD every year to support the network.

+1

and one of my projects, whether I find a way to make a profitable business or not of it involves running supernodes for just such a reason. =)

[bitlizard]

So there is a real scalability problem? Is Ben's face really in the blockchain?

[rjk]

So there is a real scalability problem? Is Ben's face really in the blockchain?

Yes, and yes.

[Gavin Andresen]

i'm not sure if he is correct about using Tor not working for inbound connections. i didn't know that was the case, if so and would like developer commentary on it.

You'll be able to run as a 'hidden service' that is advertised to other nodes running on the Tor network and get incoming Tor connections in the next release.

See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/Tor.txt  for details (send thanks to Pieter Wuille for doing the work).

RE: hard drive space:  Pieter has been busy optimizing HD usage, too ("ultraprune"), but that work isn't finished yet.

[sadpandatech]

i'm not sure if he is correct about using Tor not working for inbound connections. i didn't know that was the case, if so and would like developer commentary on it.

You'll be able to run as a 'hidden service' that is advertised to other nodes running on the Tor network and get incoming Tor connections in the next release.

See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/Tor.txt  for details (send thanks to Pieter Wuille for doing the work).

RE: hard drive space:  Pieter has been busy optimizing HD usage, too ("ultraprune"), but that work isn't finished yet.

TY, see we know the devs are constantly working on these things and certainly havn't 'failed' in any respect thus far.

Again the talk was more a critical speech on how it is so dumb compared to how HE cold do it. Instead of what could have been a really nice 'problem vs solution' talk or even jsut a straight forward technical analysis.

My orginal remarks stand. DOUCHEEe

[MoonShadow]

So there is a real scalability problem?

Yes there is a real scalability problem if all users are full clients.  No, that was never the intention.  We are already way past the point (imho) that we need more full clients.  We need more light clients and overlay networks to support them, such as BitcoinSpinner, Electrum & Stratum.

[Vladimir]

For example, his attack on scalability has as starting condition "if they operate VISA size network" and conclusion oh they would need to buy 1TB storage per week. Do you think VISA sized network could afford buying a few HDD's per day (even assuming that storage tech freezes forever now)?

Uh sure if there's 1 node, unfortunately this is a problem that every node has to deal with. I can't possibly imagine how someone who works on bitcoin magazine and has 2,300 posts and I think his own bitcoin message board too would not understand the difference.

Do you think VISA size network would have a problem buying 1000 HDD's a day, 4 years from now?

[evoorhees]

Hehehehe the more important point is that if Bitcoin reaches the size of the Visa network, then we already won.

[MoonShadow]

For example, his attack on scalability has as starting condition "if they operate VISA size network" and conclusion oh they would need to buy 1TB storage per week. Do you think VISA sized network could afford buying a few HDD's per day (even assuming that storage tech freezes forever now)?

Uh sure if there's 1 node, unfortunately this is a problem that every node has to deal with. I can't possibly imagine how someone who works on bitcoin magazine and has 2,300 posts and I think his own bitcoin message board too would not understand the difference.

Do you think VISA size network would have a problem buying 1000 HDD's a day, 4 years from now?

It also wouldn't be true once pruning is enabled.  Bandwidth would be a bottleneck for full clients on the margins, but certainly not any server-farm housed full client.

[MoonShadow]

Hehehehe the more important point is that if Bitcoin reaches the size of the Visa network, then we already won.

This is also true, if Bitcoin ever reaches this level of success, as solution will be found because we are already too big to stop.

[Vladimir]

Hehehehe the more important point is that if Bitcoin reaches the size of the Visa network, then we already won.

Exactly! He is saying: "if they win, they fail". Quite a logical fallacy this one, is it not?

Anyway, there is that thing, good project managers know about "premature optimisation"...

[cypherdoc]

Again the talk was more a critical speech on how it is so dumb compared to how HE cold do it. Instead of what could have been a really nice 'problem vs solution' talk or even jsut a straight forward technical analysis.

My orginal remarks stand. DOUCHEEe

the problem is he didn't do it, he won't do it, and he can't do it.

[acoindr]

So there is a real scalability problem?

Yes there is a real scalability problem if all users are full clients.  No, that was never the intention.  We are already way past the point (imho) that we need more full clients.  We need more light clients and overlay networks to support them, such as BitcoinSpinner, Electrum & Stratum.

I say a scalability problem may not exist.

The fact is transactions on the core Bitcoin network are NOT ideal. Such transactions are slow to confirm, and are not user friendly for more mainstream use.

What makes far more sense is eWallet/PayPal-esque transactions. Pay or receive amounts to/from anyone with an email address. The transaction is instant, and the experience as user-friendly as you like.

The majority of Bitcoin transactions should be rows updated in databases of such services. Typical transactions are not going to be large, so such services don't need to act as banks and store big Bitcoin balances. They are instead streamlined to be transactional. I estimate 70% of all Bitcoin transactions could and would be better serviced this way.

People can still store the majority of their coins offline, or however they like, and deposit/withdraw from the eWallets (infrequently) as necessary.

[cuz0882]

For example, his attack on scalability has as starting condition "if they operate VISA size network" and conclusion oh they would need to buy 1TB storage per week. Do you think VISA sized network could afford buying a few HDD's per day (even assuming that storage tech freezes forever now)?

Uh sure if there's 1 node, unfortunately this is a problem that every node has to deal with. I can't possibly imagine how someone who works on bitcoin magazine and has 2,300 posts and I think his own bitcoin message board too would not understand the difference.

Give it a couple years. I have a feeling that we'll have 100TB hard drives commonly available before scaling to Visa sizes... I have no issues buying a new HDD every year to support the network. I also torrent about 100GB/week anyway, connections speeds should have increased by then as well.

There was a article on the forum talking about the new hard drives coming out. I couldn't find the exact article, but I think this is about the same thing. This should pretty much solve the storage scalability issue. Hopefully newer technologies will always stay ahead of it. Bitcoin would basically die if the average computer could not hold the blockchain with reasonable ease. I've been more concerned about the download time. The network does not seem to allow fast downloads of the blockchain. It seems like this issue could be solved. I've never heard it discussed before though.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9225335/With_tech_breakthrough_Seagate_promises_60TB_drives_this_decade