Topic: Bitcoin has failed. Could something similar possibly work? - page 4. (Read 8645 times)

Similar thought after getting familiar with this game, hope that some new version of bitcoin or new digital currency will address these weaknesses:

1. Wallet.dat operation complexity and security concern
2. unstable exchange price
3. deflation nature

All these makes it a perfect speculation tool for IT/Gaming enthusiasts

I happened to be an IT/Gaming enthusiast, it is fun to play around

«... good enough for our transatlantic friends ... but unworthy of the attention of practical or scientific men.»
British Parliamentary Committee, referring to Edison's light bulb, 1878.   

Currently, you have to trust the escrow service.  This has not, either in the Bitcoin world or the PayPal world, worked out all that well. Many of the "escrow services" turn out to be crooks.

Some more efficient system than the Bitcom blockchain may have to be developed to do this. But it's essential.  You can't keep people hanging in their browser for minutes, waiting for transaction approval.


The launch price needs to be anchored to something. It doesn't have to be tangible, but it has to be useful independent of the currency. It could be music tracks, or land in a virtual world.  In the early stages, you need a market maker, someone who is both selling the currency units and accepting them.  "Beenz" actually tried that. 

It's worth looking at what went wrong with "Beenz".  Beenz achieved far more acceptance than Bitcoin did, and still tanked.

In other words, somebody with assets of some kind is needed to start the thing.

Some of your points are valid, but I would not consider them criteria for a failure.
However, they do deserve comment.

So basically, you'd prefer if the functionality which is currently offered by third-party escrow services, would be built straight into the protocol -- in a manner that:

- a transfer occurs in two stages
- first the sender gives up their coins, but the receiver doesn't get them yet
- the receiver has certainty that the sender HAS given up their coins, and only they may receive them
- now if the receiver cheats, and doesn't send goods, the sender loses their coins, but the receiver doesn't gain
- whether anyone gains them (generator of the next n-th block, where n is sufficiently large to give a long waiting period?), or whether the coins are lost forever, is an interesting technicality
- if the receiver is honest, the second stage is entered -- and on final confirmation by the sender, the receiver gets their coins

I agree that this functionality on the protocol level would be neat. This transaction mode would have to be optional, though, or it might be incompatible with your second wish -- that is, faster transactions.

However, it would likewise be complex. Perhaps at some moment, a non-destructive way will be found to introduce this. I would not, however, hold my breath waiting. In this regard, Bitcoin is indeed less than perfect, and that's why we have escrow services.

That could generate a lot more network traffic, and I'm not sure how much leeway do developers have. It would be neat, though, for retail purposes.

In wishing this, unfortunately I suspect you wish for flying ponies. Price stability can't be had at such an early stage of adoption. Consider the size of the world economy, and the Bitcoin economy, and the uncertainties in the future of the latter. No way could it be stable at this point. It is fit for use by those who can live with that.

I wish there was one. I truly wish. But I haven't thought of one.

This statement is pretty nonsensical. Or what was the era of 100% ROI for USD? Or for RUB? A currency is not an investment.

If you were talking about mining, then this is a very fortunate development because it will help people to focus on actual BTC businesses rather than hoarding GPUs.

Bitcoin is a big success :

Transactions last 24h    6,858
Transactions avg. per hour    285.75
Bitcoins sent last 24h    418,176.80 BTC
Bitcoins sent avg. per hour    17,424.03 BTC

You and everyone else in this thread responded.....he got what he wanted....what ever that is? 

Please don't feed the troll's.

I don't know why you think that, but It's still working very well for me and many others. Personally, I think your thread was a failed experiment at manipulation.

The thing that could easily work if bitcoin were to fail as a currency is a currency which is backed by something -- computational value.

It's not very hard to securely run a virtual machine that could offer clock cycles from your CPU or GPU to some enterprise that needs them.  These clock cycles could be measured as VM process walltime and then be used to issue currency similar to bitcoin based on this.  Initially the currency should be extremely cheap from whoever is issuing it, spurring people to buy some of it.  The currency is then exchanged with users based on the wall-time of programs running on the VM on their computer.  The VMs will basically be like shells to the outsider who can run whatever they need too, eg parallel data processing.  The end user should be able to place restrictions on the shell (e.g. HTTP port access, mail server access) to prevent illegal activities such as spam.  In time the supply will be restricted and the people who want more of this currency to run more simulations will have to buy it back from the people they'd issued it to.

If we could figure out a way to string these nodes together for parallel jobs easily, this application could overtake super computers in terms of cost of utilization...

In fact, we could keep bitcoin going if we used it like this.  But anyway.

Bitcoin I think is set to head down to $4-5 each, I give a detailed explanation here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/economic-equilibrium-and-roi-for-miners-34978
Basically the era of 100% ROI is over for BTC

If it failed for you, why not put your time into something else? This forum is mostly a collaboration tool for people who are positive about bitcoin. So, your time might be better invested into building up a project you actually like, build a web site for it, etc. Maybe some day, it will fly like bitcoin already does...

Professional FUD. 

Enough said.

Its Mr. Nagle, one of the players on this forum who goes out of his way to write-off bitcoins everytime he posts.

I sometimes wonder about hidden agendas from shitheads like this.

Speak for yourself. I am not part of that "we."

Despite an onslaught of terrible incidents, hackings, frauds, bad news, etc., the Bitcoin protocol itself still hasn't shown a single flaw. The market price is higher than it was just a couple months ago, there are serious professional businesses blooming around Bitcoin, such as Ruxum and Bitpay, and even people who lost hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of Bitcoins (such as Bruce Wagner), have not abandoned this project at all.

Bitcoin is more valuable today than it was a month ago, or a month prior to that. It is getting stronger. Poor systems and frauds are being exposed and inoculated against. Every single payment I've made or received using Bitcoin has gone smoothly.

These are signs of a failed experiment?

there's no 'I' in 'we'....

you are spreading FUD!
bitcoin have not failed(yet...)

Your premise is wrong. Bitcoin is just getting started. The problem, I think, is that too many thought it had already succeeded. These are merely growing pains. Could bitcoin still fail? Yes, in a number of ways, but on what grounds are you ready to call it so soon?

psyops.   as long as you see lots of dots, bitcoin has not failed: http://bitcoinmonitor.com/

Assuming?

At this point, we can write off Bitcoin as a failed experiment. It's worth thinking about how a different distributed digital currency might be made workable. A few problems which have to be solved:

• Mutual mistrust between buyer and seller needs to be supported. This is the toughest problem. Right now, sending Bitcoins is not tied to receiving something in return, and is irrevocable.
• The double-spending check system has to be as least as fast as normal credit card processing. Waiting minutes for the block chain to update is unacceptable.
• Some price stability is needed. Value shouldn't change more than 1% per week, worst case. 1% per month would be better.
• A better way of launching the currency needs to be developed.

There's an approach to mutual mistrust that might work.  First, as with credit cards, there's a need for an "authorize" and a "capture" stage. In the "authorize" stage, A indicates that they intend to send value to B. This locks up the value from other use by A, and B receives a reliable confirmation that A has that value. In the "capture" stage, the value is actually transferred to B. A has to authorize the "capture". 

That's the normal case. The hard cases might work as follows:

• If A does an "authorize", and then does nothing, a "capture" automatically takes place after some number of days. So sellers don't have to nag buyers.
• If B cancels the capture, that's an agreed cancellation of the transaction, and the value becomes available to A again.
• If A does an "authorize" and later cancels before a "capture", the value becomes available to them again after some number of days. This is the tough case, and it puts B at risk of the buyer backing out after shipment of the product. To discourage backing out, when A does this, they are no longer anonymous to B, and B can publicize the cancellation, which affects A's reputation. Also, because cancellations aren't immediate, A's value is tied up for days, so they can't do this too often.

Discuss.