DieJohnny (OP)
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1639
Merit: 1006
|
 |
February 08, 2015, 06:39:41 AM |
|
So Bitcoin solved the Byzantine general problem. Everyone is working on the next hash, the first to find it gets to draft the next master ledger which is then shared with all, the longest chain always wins......... or something like that So I am confused..... what truly differentiated Bitcoin from its precursors: "eCash", "Nanobarter", "BitGold" & "BitGold-Markets" yada yada Were these precursors simply ideas on paper and Bitcoin was the first real open source coded attempt? Were prior efforts not decentralized?  Is that really all it comes down to? What specific piece did Satoshi add to the mix that created the technological tour de force that became Bitcoin? Or was it simply adoption? Bitcoin was adopted by millions the others were not? ? |
Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society
|
|
|
Buffer Overflow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1015
|
|
February 08, 2015, 07:37:31 AM |
|
Bitcoin would of been had it's plugged pulled long ago by the authorities if it were centralised like your previous examples.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff Chang
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 21
Merit: 0
|
|
February 08, 2015, 10:53:02 AM |
|
Likely decentralization, but wasn't the double spend an issue with the others and bitcoin solved that? I could be wrong about that though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
readysalted89
|
|
February 08, 2015, 10:58:42 AM |
|
I thought all the precursors were centralized and the authorities pulled the plug on at least one of them. Bitcoin is the first decentralized solution that the authorities cannot pull the plug on.
|
|
|
|
|
Elwar
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3598
Merit: 2386
Viva Ut Vivas
|
|
February 08, 2015, 11:10:06 AM |
|
Likely decentralization, but wasn't the double spend an issue with the others and bitcoin solved that? I could be wrong about that though.
This. The others had a big target on their backs and could be taken down. And were. Why did Napster fail while Bittorrent has not? |
First seastead company actually selling sea homes: Ocean Builders https://ocean.builders Of course we accept bitcoin. |
|
|
countryfree
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3052
Merit: 1047
Your country may be your worst enemy
|
|
February 08, 2015, 12:10:18 PM |
|
As we all know, BTC doesn't have any fixed value, and it isn't related to anything with a fixed value. This could be the difference, though in my mind, there never were anything comparable to BTC.
|
I used to be a citizen and a taxpayer. Those days are long gone.
|
|
|
DieJohnny (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1639
Merit: 1006
|
|
February 09, 2015, 01:42:02 AM |
|
Pretty disappointing answers frankly......
|
Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society
|
|
|
|
|
validium
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
Decentralized thinking
|
|
February 09, 2015, 08:16:03 AM |
|
Why bitcoin succeeded:
1. Decentralized
2. Open source code
3. Strong community support
|
|
|
|
DarkHyudrA
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1000
English <-> Portuguese translations
|
|
February 09, 2015, 10:55:53 AM |
|
1. Decentralized
Although its true, there is still people that thinks that its bad since no one can "protect" the market value of bitcoin. It atracts the attention of diferent people when compared to centralized solutions. |
English <-> Brazilian Portuguese translations
|
|
|
|
Ingatqhvq
|
|
February 09, 2015, 12:42:13 PM |
|
Didn't? I read every newspaper say it solved this problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
noma
|
|
February 09, 2015, 01:43:30 PM |
|
Probably its the idea of being decentralized. It was also definitely much better and flexible than any of the precursors.
|
|
|
|
|
AtheistAKASaneBrain
|
|
February 09, 2015, 02:46:53 PM |
|
1. Decentralized
Although its true, there is still people that thinks that its bad since no one can "protect" the market value of bitcoin. It atracts the attention of diferent people when compared to centralized solutions. Decentralization is the future, might as well deal with it. The next step is decentralizing the internet itself. |
|
|
|
|
HarmonLi
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
Honest 80s business!
|
|
February 09, 2015, 03:09:03 PM |
|
Well, those things weren't decentralized. They were merely vehicles build atop of another commodity (USD/Gold/etc.) Bitcoin on the other hand isn't controller by a single authority and can't be shut off or go bankrupt itself. It's just not possible. There was no incentive for people to buy the precursors, with Bitcoin people anticipate the price going up. Also, Bitcoin is open, everyone can go and create their own services, it invites people to participate, to mine, and to experience using Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
RodeoX
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1147
The revolution will be monetized!
|
|
February 09, 2015, 03:13:28 PM |
|
Well, those things weren't decentralized. ...
That's what I was going to say. There really are no precursors of bitcoin. The examples you gave were attempts to make traditional systems work in a digital environment. Bitcoin is a digital native, and when combined with the lack of central authority it is truly different. It is a revolutionary development in the evolution of money. |
|
|
|
DieJohnny (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1639
Merit: 1006
|
|
February 09, 2015, 04:28:05 PM |
|
Well, those things weren't decentralized. ...
That's what I was going to say. There really are no precursors of bitcoin. The examples you gave were attempts to make traditional systems work in a digital environment. Bitcoin is a digital native, and when combined with the lack of central authority it is truly different. It is a revolutionary development in the evolution of money. This implies that the technology itself was not that important but rather the implementation and momentum. Makes Bitcoin seem more fad than revolution with that narrative. For me I would rather hear that Bitcoin implemented something in the algorithm that was truly unique and revolutionary that until that point represented a fatal flaw that would not allow the distributed momentum to ever take hold. |
Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society
|
|
|
|
Klestin
|
|
February 09, 2015, 04:30:24 PM |
|
Pretty disappointing answers frankly...... Then you're not reading. Likely decentralization, but wasn't the double spend an issue with the others and bitcoin solved that? I could be wrong about that though.
This. The others had a big target on their backs and could be taken down. And were. Why did Napster fail while Bittorrent has not? |
|
|
|
|
RodeoX
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1147
The revolution will be monetized!
|
|
February 10, 2015, 04:38:20 PM |
|
Well, those things weren't decentralized. ...
That's what I was going to say. There really are no precursors of bitcoin. The examples you gave were attempts to make traditional systems work in a digital environment. Bitcoin is a digital native, and when combined with the lack of central authority it is truly different. It is a revolutionary development in the evolution of money. This implies that the technology itself was not that important but rather the implementation and momentum. Makes Bitcoin seem more fad than revolution with that narrative. For me I would rather hear that Bitcoin implemented something in the algorithm that was truly unique and revolutionary that until that point represented a fatal flaw that would not allow the distributed momentum to ever take hold. I would say that the protocol is brilliant, but does not include much revolutionary code. Except for perhaps the blockchain, It is more of a revolutionary system. As long as it is the fastest, safest, and cheapest way to send money it is not going anywhere. |
|
|
|
mayax
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1004
|
|
February 10, 2015, 10:13:53 PM |
|
Well, those things weren't decentralized. ...
That's what I was going to say. There really are no precursors of bitcoin. The examples you gave were attempts to make traditional systems work in a digital environment. Bitcoin is a digital native, and when combined with the lack of central authority it is truly different. It is a revolutionary development in the evolution of money. This implies that the technology itself was not that important but rather the implementation and momentum. Makes Bitcoin seem more fad than revolution with that narrative. For me I would rather hear that Bitcoin implemented something in the algorithm that was truly unique and revolutionary that until that point represented a fatal flaw that would not allow the distributed momentum to ever take hold. I would say that the protocol is brilliant, but does not include much revolutionary code. Except for perhaps the blockchain, It is more of a revolutionary system. As long as it is the fastest, safest, and cheapest way to send money it is not going anywhere. the credit cards are the cheapest way and the "safest". BTC propaganda is spreading a lot of lies regarding to this thing. BTC is not free and not safe. a lot of hackings, a lot of problems.  |
|
|
|
|
|
