Topic: Bitcoins are experimental beta software. It will be replaced. - page 2. (Read 4833 times)
September 19, 2012, 02:13:07 PM
I have always been amazed by the resiliency of IRC.
September 19, 2012, 01:04:32 PM
It is very unlikely that a merchant would support both coins because all the old coins would exist in both chains and could be double spent: once as old bitcoins and once a new bitcoins.
Which doesn't matter because that should be accounted in the value of each coin.Example (using USD to show the value):
1BTC today equals 10$
Now theres a split and 20% of the people continue using bitcoinA and 80% continue using bitcoinB.
1BTCA then equals about 2$
1BTCB then equals about 8$
It's only a rough example but it should be pretty much like that in reality. As you can see there's actually no disadvantage for a merchant accepting both bitcoin versions. At a chain fork the value doesn't simply double because of being able to spend the same coin 2 times. The 2 coins aren't equal and they can have different exchange rates.
September 19, 2012, 11:04:49 AM
September 19, 2012, 10:54:41 AM
Bitcoin isn't software, it's a protocol like email.
Google didn't invent their own email protocol when they developed gmail - infact gmail would be useless if it used it's own protocol because you would only be able to communicate with other gmail users. The BBC would not be able to send an email to a gmail user from an @BBC.com email address.
Protocols are very resilient - even when they become outdated because they are just protocols without a hidden agenda.
Google didn't invent their own email protocol when they developed gmail - infact gmail would be useless if it used it's own protocol because you would only be able to communicate with other gmail users. The BBC would not be able to send an email to a gmail user from an @BBC.com email address.
Protocols are very resilient - even when they become outdated because they are just protocols without a hidden agenda.
Precisely... and the original protocols are still alive. It's quite possible to improve upon them, when necessary... with Bitcoin, it ain't necessary.
September 19, 2012, 10:52:49 AM
Bitcoin isn't software, it's a protocol like email.
Google didn't invent their own email protocol when they developed gmail - infact gmail would be useless if it used it's own protocol because you would only be able to communicate with other gmail users. The BBC would not be able to send an email to a gmail user from an @BBC.com email address.
Protocols are very resilient - even when they become outdated because they are just protocols without a hidden agenda.
Google didn't invent their own email protocol when they developed gmail - infact gmail would be useless if it used it's own protocol because you would only be able to communicate with other gmail users. The BBC would not be able to send an email to a gmail user from an @BBC.com email address.
Protocols are very resilient - even when they become outdated because they are just protocols without a hidden agenda.
September 19, 2012, 10:31:02 AM
Its open source, of course everyone can write his own client. But if someone changes the protocol in a way like "send 10% of all transactions to themselves" 51% of all miners would have to agree to use that protocol, too.
That isn't exactly correct.
Any breaking change must be supported by EVERYONE. Users, miners, exchanges, merchants, etc.
So if 51% of miners implemented that change those who disagreed could continue to use the "old/existing" Bitcoin where miners can't steal 10% of all coins. The 51% of miners would simply be mining worthless blocks which have no value.
As long as some users and miners continue to support the current protocol it will exist. What gets kinda meta is what is Bitcoin.
Say some miners decide to fork the protocol to keep the block reward at 50 BTC. Since this is a breaking change it doesn't really matter if 20% of miners support it, or 80%. The "51% check as in 51% attack" doesn't apply since each version of the protocol sees the other as completely invalid regardless of how much mining power supports it. Now lets make it extra confusing. Lets say roughly half of the users support this change and upgrade their nodes but roughly half don't. Some merchants support the "old" coins, some the "new" coins, and some support both (by implementing both nodes). The same applies to exchanges.
Essentially at this point you have to completely independent protocols. Which one is Bitcoin?
Obviously both camps will claim they are the real Bitcoin.It is very unlikely that a merchant would support both coins because all the old coins would exist in both chains and could be double spent: once as old bitcoins and once a new bitcoins.
September 19, 2012, 09:56:26 AM
It is obviously far, far superior to the original old bitcoin if you are among those who believe not halving coin generation is far, far superior to the old original bitcoin's periodic halving.
-MarkM-
I am not one of those people. There is no value in allowing coins to be generated forever, not even for the miners.
September 19, 2012, 09:52:56 AM
There are a lot of flaws with bitcoins
List me the flaws, and I'll refute them.
Any I can't refute, will be fixed either by an upgrade to Bitcoin software, or an entrepreneur who fills in the gap.
September 19, 2012, 09:45:48 AM
I get the feeling the OP started this thread just to spur some discussion so that the thread's title will have a prominent place on the main forum, possibly to scare away newcomers.
September 19, 2012, 09:45:06 AM
Do we still use "Visa" cards or "American Express"?
Those are so old school...
Oh ya...and remember the "Federal Reserve Note"?
Those are so old school...
Oh ya...and remember the "Federal Reserve Note"?
September 19, 2012, 09:38:36 AM
There are a lot of flaws with bitcoins, and it pioneered cryptocurrency. But do we still dial up to BBSes today? Use gopher? No, it has being replaced by the world wide web. Bitcoins will be replaced, don't put your life savings in.
Come on.
September 19, 2012, 09:35:28 AM
Will the idea of anonymous, irreversible, indestructable, instant cyber money will be replaced by some better concept serving the needs of users?
A: Probably, some time in the far future.
Will the technology of cryptocurrencies make way for some better technology implementing the above idea?
A: Most certainly it will be rivaled, let the better technology come out on top!
Will bitcoin be replaced by a better implementation of the thechnology of cryptocurrencies?
A: Quite possibly, there are many competing implementations out there already, still many to come, time will tell.
Its the same thing with any idea and the technologies invented to materialize it. Just think of the ideas of filesharing or telecommunication itself.
How many technologies have been created to transform those ideas into reality to bloom in mass use while becoming marginal use cases once better technologies arose? Think of the humble beginnings of file sharing technology: BBS, Usenet, Napster, Gnutella, BitTorrent, DDLs,.. only to name a few. Same goes for telecommunication (Tincan-wire phones, Telephone, mobile communication, VoIP,.. you get the idea) or any other technology.
Bitcoin is open scource with provides it whitch an advantage of innovation over proprietary technology, but not with an everlasting guarantee to always stay ahead of competitors.
A: Probably, some time in the far future.
Will the technology of cryptocurrencies make way for some better technology implementing the above idea?
A: Most certainly it will be rivaled, let the better technology come out on top!
Will bitcoin be replaced by a better implementation of the thechnology of cryptocurrencies?
A: Quite possibly, there are many competing implementations out there already, still many to come, time will tell.
Its the same thing with any idea and the technologies invented to materialize it. Just think of the ideas of filesharing or telecommunication itself.
How many technologies have been created to transform those ideas into reality to bloom in mass use while becoming marginal use cases once better technologies arose? Think of the humble beginnings of file sharing technology: BBS, Usenet, Napster, Gnutella, BitTorrent, DDLs,.. only to name a few. Same goes for telecommunication (Tincan-wire phones, Telephone, mobile communication, VoIP,.. you get the idea) or any other technology.
Bitcoin is open scource with provides it whitch an advantage of innovation over proprietary technology, but not with an everlasting guarantee to always stay ahead of competitors.
September 19, 2012, 09:30:49 AM
Why would it be replaced instead of just updated/extended/patched?
So what has replaced the internet (TCP and IP protocols)? They have a ton of flaws & shortcomings. There are lots of things which could be done better if you replaced everything from the ground up with a new set of protocols. The internet looks nothing like the internet of the early 1980s but the low level protocols are still there. They have been extended and upgraded but not replaced with a brand new system.
Did I miss the memo where we just ripped up the entire internet and replaced it with something new?
FYI, in case you haven't noticed: people are beginning to use ipv6 now. So what has replaced the internet (TCP and IP protocols)? They have a ton of flaws & shortcomings. There are lots of things which could be done better if you replaced everything from the ground up with a new set of protocols. The internet looks nothing like the internet of the early 1980s but the low level protocols are still there. They have been extended and upgraded but not replaced with a brand new system.
Did I miss the memo where we just ripped up the entire internet and replaced it with something new?
September 19, 2012, 09:20:04 AM
Amazing how varied his understanding is in his previous posts too. Even the text is inconsistent, in some he can barely type while others are in well formatted html :/
trolled by a drunk
September 19, 2012, 09:09:59 AM
would the OP care to defend his supposition please?
No, because the OP isn't in the business of debating logical positions. Like so many others, he's in the business of dropping little bombs, then scurrying away while the answers come raining down.
September 19, 2012, 09:08:08 AM
The fork to always generate 50 coins per block instead of halving the number of coins from time to time has already been done.
It is not a big hassle change with miners breaking each way since it can be merged-mined.
There is not even the big hassle of which chain your coins are on since you can very inexpensively spend coins of the old, original "bitcoin" chain to join this particular member of the group of bitcoin-like currencies.
It is known as GRouPcoin.
It is obviously far, far superior to the original old bitcoin if you are among those who believe not halving coin generation is far, far superior to the old original bitcoin's periodic halving.
-MarkM-
It is not a big hassle change with miners breaking each way since it can be merged-mined.
There is not even the big hassle of which chain your coins are on since you can very inexpensively spend coins of the old, original "bitcoin" chain to join this particular member of the group of bitcoin-like currencies.
It is known as GRouPcoin.
It is obviously far, far superior to the original old bitcoin if you are among those who believe not halving coin generation is far, far superior to the old original bitcoin's periodic halving.
-MarkM-
September 19, 2012, 09:04:16 AM
I cannot wait until the new product that our competitor, the Federal Reserve, comes out with to compete.
It should be awesome!
It should be awesome!
September 19, 2012, 09:00:23 AM
would the OP care to defend his supposition please?
September 19, 2012, 08:51:55 AM
There are a lot of flaws with bitcoins, and it pioneered cryptocurrency. But do we still dial up to BBSes today? Use gopher? No, it has being replaced by the world wide web. Bitcoins will be replaced, don't put your life savings in.
The World Wide Web as we know it today is the product of layers upon layers of protocols added over time to address various problems, so, you know, you don't always just toss out the base and start over.
THIS is why i gave you that Bull!
September 19, 2012, 08:34:08 AM
Its open source, of course everyone can write his own client. But if someone changes the protocol in a way like "send 10% of all transactions to themselves" 51% of all miners would have to agree to use that protocol, too.
That isn't exactly correct.
Any breaking change must be supported by EVERYONE. Users, miners, exchanges, merchants, etc.
So if 51% of miners implemented that change those who disagreed could continue to use the "old/existing" Bitcoin where miners can't steal 10% of all coins. The 51% of miners would simply be mining worthless blocks which have no value.
As long as some users and miners continue to support the current protocol it will exist. What gets kinda meta is what is Bitcoin.
Say some miners decide to fork the protocol to keep the block reward at 50 BTC. Since this is a breaking change it doesn't really matter if 20% of miners support it, or 80%. The "51% check as in 51% attack" doesn't apply since each version of the protocol sees the other as completely invalid regardless of how much mining power supports it. Now lets make it extra confusing. Lets say roughly half of the users support this change and upgrade their nodes but roughly half don't. Some merchants support the "old" coins, some the "new" coins, and some support both (by implementing both nodes). The same applies to exchanges.
Essentially at this point you have to completely independent protocols. Which one is Bitcoin?
Obviously both camps will claim they are the real Bitcoin. Jump to: