To be perfectly fair, I can see how Erik feels the need to make Bitcoin seem like the ultimate thing with absolutely no flaws, seeing how he has a vested interest in seeing it prosper so that he can profit from the increased exchange rate.
Topic: Bitcoin - The Libertarian Introduction (a primer on Bitcoin) (Read 7074 times)
To be perfectly fair, I can see how Erik feels the need to make Bitcoin seem like the ultimate thing with absolutely no flaws, seeing how he has a vested interest in seeing it prosper so that he can profit from the increased exchange rate.
To be perfectly fair, I can see how Erik feels the need to make Bitcoin seem like the ultimate thing with absolutely no flaws, seeing how he has a vested interest in seeing it prosper so that he can profit from the increased exchange rate.
Ahh! Heaven forbid one have a vested interest in building something! One ought not profit from what one builds! It is a crime against polite society to advocate superior alternatives, for by doing so, matters may be improved and people made better off! To be sure, the only projects worthy of advocacy are those which benefit no person at all, or better yet, let us strive to only advance the creations which reduce profits, wealth, and gains entirely!
As such, bitcoin can be said the first ever "community based" monetary system, one that cannot be easily hijacked by a small poor group of people.
Fixed that for you.
Just now getting around to reading it. This is one great article, albeit I did find an error.
Quote
Bitcoin is thus the only currency and money system in the world which has no counter-party risk to hold and to transfer. This is absolutely revolutionary and you should read the preceding sentence again.
Actually this particular paragraph might contain a slight overstatement: it's more accurate to write that bitcoin allows us for the first time in history to spread the counter-party risk on the entire community (of miners) instead of relying on a single counter-party (single point-of-failure).
As such, bitcoin can be said the first ever "community based" monetary system, one that cannot be easily hijacked by a small group of people.
I don't think the miners qualify as counter-party risk. In fact, if they all stopped, I could mine myself
Of course, we could also say Bitcoin has counter-party risk in the internet infrastructure itself... I rely on the cables and electricity and servers. But I think that starts becoming a meaningless definition of "counter party risk".
It is the fact that no single entity or organization is vulnerable or can halt the payment or holding of Bitcoin. THAT is the breakthrough and I thus I think the statement "no counter party risk" is valid.
That’s true: you can replace elusive miners with your own mining rigs, thereby mitigating the counter-party risk.
However that amounts to acknowledging that such risk exists, even with the bitcoin network.
That is the point I was trying to make: bitcoin does not remove the counter-party risk but what bitcoin does is put you in control of the risk.
there's no other way it profit from such an attack
This statement isn't factually correct. There may be many additional incentives.For example, a bank could profit financially from destroying Bitcoin's image because people would return to the traditional financial system. At $84,349.58 for a one-day 51% attack*, I'd say it's chump change for financial institutions; add in a couple of double-spends, and you'll not only fuck Bitcoin permanently, but even profit!
* Cost amortized over a year of operation. (Caveat will be removed for conciseness.)
You can't add in a couple of double-spends, you can only pull of one double-spend before everyone on the network realises there is something very wrong, at which point everybody will stop accepting bitcoins until the attack is over. Once the attack is over, the network will resume functioning as normal. A one-day 51% attack doesn't fuck Bitcoin permanently, it only fucks Bitcoin for one day.
It does fuck Bitcoin permanently. People would lose trust in Bitcoin, and I doubt many would hang around.
Edit: Because the attacker is only mining on top of their own chain, mining profitability would plummet and miners would be forced to leave the game, initiating a vicious cycle where the attack becomes cheaper and cheaper.
One of my favorite posters, SgtSpike, sums this up nicely:
I, for one, would leave Bitcoins altogether if someone was trying to forceably control the Bitcoin network with > 51% of the hashing power. And I know I'm not the only one...
there's no other way it profit from such an attack
This statement isn't factually correct. There may be many additional incentives.For example, a bank could profit financially from destroying Bitcoin's image because people would return to the traditional financial system. At $84,349.58 for a one-day 51% attack*, I'd say it's chump change for financial institutions; add in a couple of double-spends, and you'll not only fuck Bitcoin permanently, but even profit!
* Cost amortized over a year of operation. (Caveat will be removed for conciseness.)
You can't add in a couple of double-spends, you can only pull of one double-spend before everyone on the network realises there is something very wrong, at which point everybody will stop accepting bitcoins until the attack is over. Once the attack is over, the network will resume functioning as normal. A one-day 51% attack doesn't fuck Bitcoin permanently, it only fucks Bitcoin for one day.
Currently making a 51% attack is not so expensive for rich people/banks/governments/whatelse
there's no other way it profit from such an attack
This statement isn't factually correct. There may be many additional incentives.For example, a bank could profit financially from destroying Bitcoin's image because people would return to the traditional financial system. At $84,349.58 for a one-day 51% attack*, I'd say it's chump change for financial institutions; add in a couple of double-spends, and you'll not only fuck Bitcoin permanently, but even profit!
* Cost amortized over a year of operation. (Caveat will be removed for conciseness.)
To be perfectly fair, I can see how Erik feels the need to make Bitcoin seem like the ultimate thing with absolutely no flaws, seeing how he has a vested interest in seeing it prosper so that he can profit from the increased exchange rate.
Here's another one: "Nobody can prevent you from spending it."
The bitcoin wiki saves the day:
The bitcoin wiki saves the day:
Quote
An attacker that controls more than 50% of the network's computing power can, for the time that he is in control, exclude and modify the ordering of transactions. This allows him to:
Reverse transactions that he sends while he's in control
Prevent some or all transactions from gaining any confirmations
Prevent some or all other miners from mining any valid blocks
Reverse transactions that he sends while he's in control
Prevent some or all transactions from gaining any confirmations
Prevent some or all other miners from mining any valid blocks
Actually, although a 51% attack can prevent transactions from being confirmed, the unconfirmed transactions are still in the network and thus will start gaining confirmations as soon as the attacker loses his 51%. So at worst, an attacker could delay you from spending your coins for some period of time, which probably wouldn't be very long: Since a 51% attack is ludicrously expensive, I think it is safe to say it will only last long enough for the attacker to do a single double-spend, since there's no other way it profit from such an attack and thus no point in maintaining the 51% any longer than that.
Here's another one: "Nobody can prevent you from spending it."
The bitcoin wiki saves the day:
I'm pretty sure an attack that isThe bitcoin wiki saves the day:
Quote
An attacker that controls more than 50% of the network's computing power can, for the time that he is in control, exclude and modify the ordering of transactions. This allows him to:
Reverse transactions that he sends while he's in control
Prevent some or all transactions from gaining any confirmations
Prevent some or all other miners from mining any valid blocks
Reverse transactions that he sends while he's in control
Prevent some or all transactions from gaining any confirmations
Prevent some or all other miners from mining any valid blocks
* Incredibly expensive...
* Temporary...
* Yet to be accomplished by anyone...
* Indiscriminate against particular users...
Counts as a "caveat".
You might as well include the threat of someone destroying your keys, that would prevent you from spending it much easier. If you are so good at writing concise, understandable articles that are suitable for a reader to digest in one sitting - well then be my guest. Everyone will thank you for it.
I'm afraid that last sentence isn't factually correct.
If you are so good at writing concise, understandable articles that are suitable for a reader to digest in one sitting - well then be my guest. Everyone will thank you for it.
I'm afraid that last sentence isn't factually correct.Don't be a fool. You know damn well that the keypool had 100 addresses, so the analogy would be more like "here is enough gas to get you there, but it might not be enough to get back". Or even "here is enough for a few round trips, but you will have to learn how to refuel eventually".
Sorry! 100 ounces*.* May or may not be enough to safely reach your destination. (Disclaimer will be stripped for conciseness.)
If you are so good at writing concise, understandable articles that are suitable for a reader to digest in one sitting - well then be my guest. Everyone will thank you for it.
I'm afraid that last sentence isn't factually correct. You DO only need 1 ounce of gas for your airplane... There's just a caveat. The caveat is when you try to actually fucking take off.
"Sorry, my goal was to write a concise article on Bitcoin."
Edit: Factually correct statements - killing people since the birth of evorhees!
Don't be a fool. You know damn well that the keypool had 100 addresses, so the analogy would be more like "here is enough gas to get you there, but it might not be enough to get back". Or even "here is enough for a few round trips, but you will have to learn how to refuel eventually"."Sorry, my goal was to write a concise article on Bitcoin."
Edit: Factually correct statements - killing people since the birth of evorhees!
If you are so good at writing concise, understandable articles that are suitable for a reader to digest in one sitting - well then be my guest. Everyone will thank you for it.
Here's another one: "Nobody can prevent you from spending it."
The bitcoin wiki saves the day:
The bitcoin wiki saves the day:
Quote
An attacker that controls more than 50% of the network's computing power can, for the time that he is in control, exclude and modify the ordering of transactions. This allows him to:
Reverse transactions that he sends while he's in control
Prevent some or all transactions from gaining any confirmations
Prevent some or all other miners from mining any valid blocks
Reverse transactions that he sends while he's in control
Prevent some or all transactions from gaining any confirmations
Prevent some or all other miners from mining any valid blocks
Well there are people who are using Bitcoin wallets that have required new backups. I happen to have one that is pushing it, 90 or so addresses used. The main problem with this is that it's actually not easy to keep track of the amount of addresses used because you have to check the list of your receiving addresses + the amount of sent transactions. It's reaaaalllyyy far from being user friendly.
That happens to be one of the many reasons that I don't actually recommend the official client to anyone anymore. There are much better clients out there that make more sense. The official client goes to the same category as Armory, meant for power users. Regular users should be using other clients.
That happens to be one of the many reasons that I don't actually recommend the official client to anyone anymore. There are much better clients out there that make more sense. The official client goes to the same category as Armory, meant for power users. Regular users should be using other clients.
You DO only need 1 ounce of gas for your airplane... There's just a caveat. The caveat is when you try to actually fucking take off.
"Sorry, my goal was to write a concise article on Bitcoin."
Edit: Factually correct statements - killing people since the birth of evorhees!
"Sorry, my goal was to write a concise article on Bitcoin."
Edit: Factually correct statements - killing people since the birth of evorhees!
I was trying to make the article somewhat future-proof (and had to keep it simple), so I didn't delve into nuances like this.
It's better to say nothing about wallet safety than to say things you know are factually incorrect and dangerous.
I've been involved with Bitcoin for a year now. Never once have I used a wallet with more than 100 addresses. The average casual user will find out about the 100 addresses thing long before he puts himself at risk like that.
The statement is not factually incorrect. You DO only need one backup of the wallet. .. there's just a caveat. The caveat is when you go over 100 addresses - and to try to explain every caveat and nuance of Bitcoin in an introductory article (that was already 14 pages single spaced) is going to be counter productive, don't you think?
I was trying to make the article somewhat future-proof (and had to keep it simple), so I didn't delve into nuances like this.
It's better to say nothing about wallet safety than to say things you know are factually incorrect and dangerous.
The article still says "You only need to back up the wallet file once at the beginning".
That's untrue, and dangerous advice.
That's untrue, and dangerous advice.
Jump to: