Topic: Can anyone speak to this video? Critical of Bitcoin - page 2. (Read 2591 times)
So there is a real scalability problem? Is Ben's face really in the blockchain?
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. =)
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.
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.
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
" 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jump to: