........................
Topic: Most pathetic Bitcoin-hater article of all time (Read 1499 times)
"However, mining has gotten so difficult that miners have begun joining in mining pools to increase their chances"
........................
........................
Guys we should actually appreciate these articles and dis-belief by Nobel Prize winners and other Phd's.
It TOTALLY proves Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are for OUR generation, it's a new thing.
These old people don't know anything about it, they make the most absurd reviews of Bitcoins showing they have no idea what it actually can and will do. They're Phd's but actually see no intrinsic value in BTC, I can probably point out five arguments of the bat..
Anyways, these Professors can only teach what was 'cool' in their early years, that's why going to college will only get you an above-medium salary. Being a PIONEER and believing in new things and going for it is what gonna make you rich..don't be a sheep.
It TOTALLY proves Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are for OUR generation, it's a new thing.
These old people don't know anything about it, they make the most absurd reviews of Bitcoins showing they have no idea what it actually can and will do. They're Phd's but actually see no intrinsic value in BTC, I can probably point out five arguments of the bat..
Anyways, these Professors can only teach what was 'cool' in their early years, that's why going to college will only get you an above-medium salary. Being a PIONEER and believing in new things and going for it is what gonna make you rich..don't be a sheep.
In early 90's I went to university to study economics for 3 years, I did not finished the course and did not get graduated since I moved to another career in my life... but I tell you, economics is a social science and as such all social sciences the build block is the human "soul", I know sounds oversimplified, but its hard to find theory, make predictions, about the human behavior. Most of the time (dependant independent controlled variables are so hard to isolate regards human behavior research, sure another sciences like physics etc is another history though ) ... so dont let your "judgement" or "common sense" be so easily manipulated by a guy who holds a PhD, nobel prize, whatsorever ... I already saw so many articles signed by "authority" that even didn't know that bitcoin could be divisible.. or not really knows how a distributed network works ... etc ... sometimes sounds like ..
hey , everybody is talking about bitcoin, you're authority right ? so whats your opnion
Then the poor guy needs to write something under pressure lol ...
How is this possible ?
For example, suppose a customer attempts a purchase from an online merchant, and enters the Bitcoin number. Alas, a hacker has broken into the system, Target style, and grabs and spends the Bitcoin number before the merchant even sees it. Even if the compromised system was on the customer's end, it may be hard to prove and the merchant still ends up eating the loss or facing a lawsuit.
For example, suppose a customer attempts a purchase from an online merchant, and enters the Bitcoin number. Alas, a hacker has broken into the system, Target style, and grabs and spends the Bitcoin number before the merchant even sees it. Even if the compromised system was on the customer's end, it may be hard to prove and the merchant still ends up eating the loss or facing a lawsuit.
This would be a man-in-the-middle attack where your browser is compromised and the send-to address is changed without the user's knowledge when the transaction is signed. However, the author obviously doesn't know what he is talking about because it would be easy to prove that the transaction went to the wrong address when asking the user for proof. If the user cannot prove that they sent the correct amount of bitcoin to the merchants address, then how would the merchant be liable. The author does not understand a publicly verifiable blockchain.
I could handle this until I read about "my Bitcoin number being intercepted." Then it just hurt.
Quote
Quote
Fraud
Andreessen errs in his assertion that Bitcoin is fraud-proof for merchants. It is quite easy to imagine several possible situations resulting in fraud losses to merchants. For example, suppose a customer attempts a purchase from an online merchant, and enters the Bitcoin number. Alas, a hacker has broken into the system, Target style, and grabs and spends the Bitcoin number before the merchant even sees it. Even if the compromised system was on the customer's end, it may be hard to prove and the merchant still ends up eating the loss or facing a lawsuit. And, of course, the merchant's wallet could be hacked and the Bitcoins stolen, with no recourse.
Andreessen errs in his assertion that Bitcoin is fraud-proof for merchants. It is quite easy to imagine several possible situations resulting in fraud losses to merchants. For example, suppose a customer attempts a purchase from an online merchant, and enters the Bitcoin number. Alas, a hacker has broken into the system, Target style, and grabs and spends the Bitcoin number before the merchant even sees it. Even if the compromised system was on the customer's end, it may be hard to prove and the merchant still ends up eating the loss or facing a lawsuit. And, of course, the merchant's wallet could be hacked and the Bitcoins stolen, with no recourse.
This, I don't even get. The payment was made ... and then.. what? I really don't understand what he means. I don't think he understands the technology here.
An btw, there is no fraud in traditional payment system ... lol
... I manage a small business and I see fraud almost every day ... and guess what, most of the people covered by "insurance and guarantee polices" does not effectively get it when they need. They make it so hard, painful and over-complicate to claim a loss that people prefer accept the losses. Credit card company says that it is necessary to avoid system abuse. But what it's really reminds me is the movie scene from "Fight Club - Car Recall Calculus" . I copy and paste from a blogger ...Quote
The Fight Club Car Recall
In the film Fight Club, among the depths of monologue and conversation, the Narrator explains to another airline passenger how his employer, a major car company, goes about initiating a recall. The exact quote is:
Narrator: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
So boiling it down, there are the four variables.
A. Number of vehicles
B. Probable rate of failure
C. Average out-of-court settlement
X. Cutoff number for a recall
Following the narrator's math, X
Sounds terrible and mathematical right? If a business does this, we should boycott their clearly unethical behavior, right? Well, legally, this is not only ethical, but legal and expected behavior from any person.
Welcome, to the wonderful world of negligence law. In particular, the formula the narrator describes is a rephrased version of the "Calculus of Negligence" or Hand Test. Now, lawyer's typically aren't good at math, so leave it to them to make a very basic Algebraic formula "Calculus." Here there are three variables:
B. Burden of taking Precaution
P. Probability
L. Loss
Applied, this formula comes out as B
Starting to look familiar? That's because this is the same formula the narrator rattled off. The probability multiplied by the number of the cars in the field gives you the total probability of loss in the field. The loss in this case is the average settlement, and as 97% of cases are settled out of court, using the average out of court settlement is completely fair.
So was the car company evil? That's completely debatable from a moral perspective. Granted, they didn't beat people half to death, but they didn't do a voluntary recall to save some lives. However, legally, they were completely in the right, as long as their math was right.
Source: http://inaneexplained.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/fight-club-car-recall.html
In the film Fight Club, among the depths of monologue and conversation, the Narrator explains to another airline passenger how his employer, a major car company, goes about initiating a recall. The exact quote is:
Narrator: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
So boiling it down, there are the four variables.
A. Number of vehicles
B. Probable rate of failure
C. Average out-of-court settlement
X. Cutoff number for a recall
Following the narrator's math, X
Sounds terrible and mathematical right? If a business does this, we should boycott their clearly unethical behavior, right? Well, legally, this is not only ethical, but legal and expected behavior from any person.
Welcome, to the wonderful world of negligence law. In particular, the formula the narrator describes is a rephrased version of the "Calculus of Negligence" or Hand Test. Now, lawyer's typically aren't good at math, so leave it to them to make a very basic Algebraic formula "Calculus." Here there are three variables:
B. Burden of taking Precaution
P. Probability
L. Loss
Applied, this formula comes out as B
Starting to look familiar? That's because this is the same formula the narrator rattled off. The probability multiplied by the number of the cars in the field gives you the total probability of loss in the field. The loss in this case is the average settlement, and as 97% of cases are settled out of court, using the average out of court settlement is completely fair.
So was the car company evil? That's completely debatable from a moral perspective. Granted, they didn't beat people half to death, but they didn't do a voluntary recall to save some lives. However, legally, they were completely in the right, as long as their math was right.
Source: http://inaneexplained.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/fight-club-car-recall.html
How is this possible ?
For example, suppose a customer attempts a purchase from an online merchant, and enters the Bitcoin number. Alas, a hacker has broken into the system, Target style, and grabs and spends the Bitcoin number before the merchant even sees it. Even if the compromised system was on the customer's end, it may be hard to prove and the merchant still ends up eating the loss or facing a lawsuit.
For example, suppose a customer attempts a purchase from an online merchant, and enters the Bitcoin number. Alas, a hacker has broken into the system, Target style, and grabs and spends the Bitcoin number before the merchant even sees it. Even if the compromised system was on the customer's end, it may be hard to prove and the merchant still ends up eating the loss or facing a lawsuit.
It isn't
How is this possible ?
For example, suppose a customer attempts a purchase from an online merchant, and enters the Bitcoin number. Alas, a hacker has broken into the system, Target style, and grabs and spends the Bitcoin number before the merchant even sees it. Even if the compromised system was on the customer's end, it may be hard to prove and the merchant still ends up eating the loss or facing a lawsuit.
For example, suppose a customer attempts a purchase from an online merchant, and enters the Bitcoin number. Alas, a hacker has broken into the system, Target style, and grabs and spends the Bitcoin number before the merchant even sees it. Even if the compromised system was on the customer's end, it may be hard to prove and the merchant still ends up eating the loss or facing a lawsuit.
It's not pathetic at all. Being wrong is not pathetic.
What amazes me most is the love of law, regulation and fiat currency at all ends of this.
Some of this is so easily refuted
Yes it can be stolen. Big new there. So can cash, gold, anything. Bitcoin risk is at the moment at par with cash. Bitcoin security will increase over time. What's the argument here again?
1) Yes, it blew up because of old time QE (adding worthless metals to the coins with gold in). It was not because of the gold, but because of government intervention.
Bitcoin prevents that for obvious reasons.
2) No it isn't. The market sorts this out of itself. All evidence (at least of that I have seen, and reality seems to show this aswell) points to in the direction of intervention not working.
3) Yes, the powerful will protect their power to manipulate the currency to their own end.
This, I don't even get. The payment was made ... and then.. what? I really don't understand what he means. I don't think he understands the technology here.
.... ... ... .
What amazes me most is the love of law, regulation and fiat currency at all ends of this.
Some of this is so easily refuted
Quote
Consumer protection
Bitcoins lack the consumer protection inherent in existing payment systems. Just as with old fashioned paper money, Bitcoins are subject to theft. A Bitcoin is a number with the special property that it can be transferred from one person to another via a digital signature process that is verified by the network of Bitcoin miners. However, anyone with that number can spend it. Thus, if a hacker gets access to the number, the hacker can immediately steal the Bitcoin. In a recently publicized incident, a Bloomberg TV show briefly flashed the QR code to a Bitcoin and it was almost immediately stolen. Even though Bitcoin transactions are visible in the blockchain and theoretically traceable, "tumbler" sites exist that make it possible to obscure the electronic trail. Thus, Bitcoins are as risky as physical cash, if not more so, and this will inhibit consumer acceptance. Given the incidence of malware that picks digital wallets, the average non-tech savvy person who occasionally screws up and gets some malware infection will eventually end up as a victim of bitcrime.
Bitcoins lack the consumer protection inherent in existing payment systems. Just as with old fashioned paper money, Bitcoins are subject to theft. A Bitcoin is a number with the special property that it can be transferred from one person to another via a digital signature process that is verified by the network of Bitcoin miners. However, anyone with that number can spend it. Thus, if a hacker gets access to the number, the hacker can immediately steal the Bitcoin. In a recently publicized incident, a Bloomberg TV show briefly flashed the QR code to a Bitcoin and it was almost immediately stolen. Even though Bitcoin transactions are visible in the blockchain and theoretically traceable, "tumbler" sites exist that make it possible to obscure the electronic trail. Thus, Bitcoins are as risky as physical cash, if not more so, and this will inhibit consumer acceptance. Given the incidence of malware that picks digital wallets, the average non-tech savvy person who occasionally screws up and gets some malware infection will eventually end up as a victim of bitcrime.
Yes it can be stolen. Big new there. So can cash, gold, anything. Bitcoin risk is at the moment at par with cash. Bitcoin security will increase over time. What's the argument here again?
Quote
Bad monetary policy
Many of the proponents of Bitcoin view it as a digital gold standard. Its allegedly fixed supply is seen as a panacea for the problems inherent in fiat money systems. However, the historical experience with the gold standard shows that it regularly blew up in severe recessions. It is essential that there be some flexibility in a monetary system in order to deal with crises. It is highly unlikely that the general public would accept being crucified on a cross of digital gold when the inevitable crisis hits a Bitcoin-based monetary system. (This is a reference to William Jennings Bryan's famous "Cross of Gold" criticism of the gold standard.) Thus policy makers will resist widespread use of the existing Bitcoin as a payment system.
Many of the proponents of Bitcoin view it as a digital gold standard. Its allegedly fixed supply is seen as a panacea for the problems inherent in fiat money systems. However, the historical experience with the gold standard shows that it regularly blew up in severe recessions. It is essential that there be some flexibility in a monetary system in order to deal with crises. It is highly unlikely that the general public would accept being crucified on a cross of digital gold when the inevitable crisis hits a Bitcoin-based monetary system. (This is a reference to William Jennings Bryan's famous "Cross of Gold" criticism of the gold standard.) Thus policy makers will resist widespread use of the existing Bitcoin as a payment system.
1) Yes, it blew up because of old time QE (adding worthless metals to the coins with gold in). It was not because of the gold, but because of government intervention.
Bitcoin prevents that for obvious reasons.
2) No it isn't. The market sorts this out of itself. All evidence (at least of that I have seen, and reality seems to show this aswell) points to in the direction of intervention not working.
3) Yes, the powerful will protect their power to manipulate the currency to their own end.
Quote
Fraud
Andreessen errs in his assertion that Bitcoin is fraud-proof for merchants. It is quite easy to imagine several possible situations resulting in fraud losses to merchants. For example, suppose a customer attempts a purchase from an online merchant, and enters the Bitcoin number. Alas, a hacker has broken into the system, Target style, and grabs and spends the Bitcoin number before the merchant even sees it. Even if the compromised system was on the customer's end, it may be hard to prove and the merchant still ends up eating the loss or facing a lawsuit. And, of course, the merchant's wallet could be hacked and the Bitcoins stolen, with no recourse.
Andreessen errs in his assertion that Bitcoin is fraud-proof for merchants. It is quite easy to imagine several possible situations resulting in fraud losses to merchants. For example, suppose a customer attempts a purchase from an online merchant, and enters the Bitcoin number. Alas, a hacker has broken into the system, Target style, and grabs and spends the Bitcoin number before the merchant even sees it. Even if the compromised system was on the customer's end, it may be hard to prove and the merchant still ends up eating the loss or facing a lawsuit. And, of course, the merchant's wallet could be hacked and the Bitcoins stolen, with no recourse.
This, I don't even get. The payment was made ... and then.. what? I really don't understand what he means. I don't think he understands the technology here.
.... ... ... .
To be very honest ... same bla bla bla over and over again ... you can actually exchange "bitcoin" for "actual finalcial system" ...
+1 people should stop comparing bitcoin to "actual financial systems". Bitcoin is independent and should stay that way. 
Quote
Western Union are so expensive is the labor intensity at both ends of the transaction.
LOL Oh dear, he really doesn't know how banking systems work does he?
I disagree. He makes some very good arguments. They are certainly much better than the typical uninformed FUD. I disagree with many of his conclusions, but that doesn't make him a "pathetic Bitcoin-hater".
Well time will tell, but I think 5 years from now articles like his will be spread around the internet for laughs and his analogy about bitcoin numbers being stolen by an evil hacker in the middle of a transaction will go down as the all time dumbest thing anyone has ever come up with.
I was hoping for a more articulate and fresh level of doom from someone with so many letters after their name.
To be very honest ... same bla bla bla over and over again ... you can actually exchange "bitcoin" for "actual finalcial system" ...
I managed up until the bit he started talking about bitcoin numbers and how if you show anyone your bitcoin number they will steal it. Should I be keeping my numbers in a box under the bed or something?
OMG this has to be the worst article and worst attempt at analysis of Bitcoin I have ever read, and by a phd no less.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57617636-76/where-bitcoin-boosters-are-getting-it-wrong/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57617636-76/where-bitcoin-boosters-are-getting-it-wrong/
Jump to: