As someone who works in the same field as Snowden used to,
Tell us more.
Tech support for a PC store?
Topic: Snowden Says Bitcoin is Flawed - page 3. (Read 3526 times)
Tell us more.
Tech support for a PC store?
As someone who works in the same field as Snowden used to,
Tell us more.
Snowden is almost certainly a "sheep-dipped" CIA agent, so I wouldn't listen to a word he says without recognising that it's possible propaganda.
I think we all know it's flawed. Everything is.
vulnerable to people who are trying to own 50 percent of the network and so on and so forth
Sorry, but Snowden is talking bollocks. See this great response by Andreas Antonopoulos.Nice answer indeed, but:
1. Bitcoin actually faces the risk of 51% attack, but if and only if it'll become too expensive to mine and the miners will shut down. Then the diff can go very low. However, that means the death of bitcoin and I don't expect that to actually happen.
2. Snowden is now a trade mark. Whatever bollocks he tells, some will simply believe him, and this is not a good advert for Bitcoin.
vulnerable to people who are trying to own 50 percent of the network and so on and so forth
Sorry, but Snowden is talking bollocks. See this great response by Andreas Antonopoulos.WOW! I didn't know that Andreas has the talent for stand up comedy. Great view! Thx!
edit: and it's true what he says. People often laugh when they hear the truth
"This would actually require government, that can do IT" wahahahahahahahahah great just great ....
vulnerable to people who are trying to own 50 percent of the network and so on and so forth
Sorry, but Snowden is talking bollocks. See this great response by Andreas Antonopoulos. Since he has been open to revealing classified information, there is no need for him to be guarded about revealing any Bitcoin flaws.
I agree and think this is a key point. He is clearly no bitcoin expert, anyone resorting to so on and so forth is tacitly admitting ignorance.
Going along with Elwar's point, it is what he DIDN"T say that is so key. If he'd said something like the NSA developed bitcoin and can crack it easily that would be cause for alarm.
He's right, a 51% attack is a risk, but it's hardly anything we don't already know about.
He is obv. no Bitcoin expert.
even though you are right, but, what would you say if what he said "bitcoin's flaw" was proven?now, what is your evidence that what he just said is no legitimacy?
You do realize how many millions of dollars it requires to perform a 51% percent attack, no? It's barely feasible. And even if it does occur, it's still going to have to deal with the chance that the other side/group/chain may pull together that extra 1/2/3 % or whatever to keep a particular chain of consensus.
Look at the Bitcoin XT deal. It needs to hit 75% before anyone will really get anywhere. A 51% attack in no way implies that the attack will succeed.
The evidence that what Snowden says has (virtually) no legitimacy is that he displays deep ignorance about the Bitcoin protocol in other things he throws out there, namely that there is an identity issue with Bitcoin, when there's only an identity issue because people keep using their identity to get Bitcoin.
Create some other token - like he says - and then we can apparently do lots of things. Erm. No. That would be the Bitcoin blockchain potential already that he's just mentioned.
Like others have pointed out, he should have done his research. Really he should have.
I will say one thing though... I do find the Obama commissioning a supercomputer to be worrying, I have to admit.
i don't wanna war with you, dude.
at the red words, as the people left their XT node wallet due to the blockchain matter, people would start using the online wallet.
did you realise that the XT is used to centralise the power of bitcoin and get it to regulate? unless we would not be in struggle with the excessive blockchain size, otherwise, 75% attacks would be just a piece of cake.
He is obv. no Bitcoin expert.
even though you are right, but, what would you say if what he said "bitcoin's flaw" was proven?now, what is your evidence that what he just said is no legitimacy?
You do realize how many millions of dollars it requires to perform a 51% percent attack, no? It's barely feasible. And even if it does occur, it's still going to have to deal with the chance that the other side/group/chain may pull together that extra 1/2/3 % or whatever to keep a particular chain of consensus.
Look at the Bitcoin XT deal. It needs to hit 75% before anyone will really get anywhere. A 51% attack in no way implies that the attack will succeed.
The evidence that what Snowden says has (virtually) no legitimacy is that he displays deep ignorance about the Bitcoin protocol in other things he throws out there, namely that there is an identity issue with Bitcoin, when there's only an identity issue because people keep using their identity to get Bitcoin.
Create some other token - like he says - and then we can apparently do lots of things. Erm. No. That would be the Bitcoin blockchain potential already that he's just mentioned.
Like others have pointed out, he should have done his research. Really he should have.
I will say one thing though... I do find the Obama commissioning a supercomputer to be worrying, I have to admit.
He is obv. no Bitcoin expert.
Exactly. I don't really think he's much of an expert in anything really but just got thrown out there because he had the balls to share the information he had access to (which I respect him massively for btw). I'm surprised he's not more of a fan than bitcoin to be fair. It's one thing he could benefit massively from.
I used to kind of think he may have been involved with some of the early BTC development. After reading that I changed my mind. Unless, he is trying to play dumb to fool us.
As someone who works in the same field as Snowden used to, I am very confident that he is wrong.
Since he has been open to revealing classified information, there is no need for him to be guarded about revealing any Bitcoin flaws.
Since he has been open to revealing classified information, there is no need for him to be guarded about revealing any Bitcoin flaws.
Well, he did say he likes the concept.
Maybe if he get's into it a bit more he will change his mind or even come up with "interesting things" to do, now that he is unemployed and stuff
Maybe if he get's into it a bit more he will change his mind or even come up with "interesting things" to do, now that he is unemployed and stuff
He is obv. no Bitcoin expert.
even though you are right, but, what would you say if what he said "bitcoin's flaw" was proven?now, what is your evidence that what he just said is no legitimacy?
well he's got lots of time on hands now really hasn't he to do some research before making any further statements on Bitcoin, people do tend to listen to this fella.
I would have expected him to use some of his copious spare time to actually research the topic if he was giving an ietf interview.
'Course the interviewer may have played loose with the quotes. I couldn't find audio or video anywhere....
'Course the interviewer may have played loose with the quotes. I couldn't find audio or video anywhere....
He is obv. no Bitcoin expert.
I'm not sure if Snowden particularly knows what he's talking about in this case really. I mean, the 51% attack is hardly something most don't know about.
http://cointelegraph.com/news/115133/edward-snowden-on-bitcoin-bitcoin-by-itself-is-flawed
“Obviously, Bitcoin by itself is flawed. The protocol has a lot of weaknesses and transaction sides and a lot of weaknesses that structurally make it vulnerable to people who are trying to own 50 percent of the network and so on and so forth.”
'Despite his concern for the digital currency, Snowden believes the concept of tokenization and proof of work could be implemented to create “some very interesting things,” which “people can basically pay for access other than direct transfers of currency that originated with an association to their true name.”
Bitcoin's associations to name/identity is due to the square-peg-round-hole problem of many developed countries now placing their structures/legislation onto Bitcoin and the purchase trading of it, not any inherent flaw in Bitcoin itself.
If people will give identity to these exchanges/circle etc. to play with the ball, then what does anyone expect? Kind of disappointed with Snowden now really. I mean anyone can throw a sound bite out there like: “some very interesting things,”
What does that even mean? It's like me saying in the dawning age of home computers that they'll be able to do some 'very interesting things' one day. Anyone could have said it. I expected more from Snowden to be honest.
http://cointelegraph.com/news/115133/edward-snowden-on-bitcoin-bitcoin-by-itself-is-flawed
“Obviously, Bitcoin by itself is flawed. The protocol has a lot of weaknesses and transaction sides and a lot of weaknesses that structurally make it vulnerable to people who are trying to own 50 percent of the network and so on and so forth.”
'Despite his concern for the digital currency, Snowden believes the concept of tokenization and proof of work could be implemented to create “some very interesting things,” which “people can basically pay for access other than direct transfers of currency that originated with an association to their true name.”
Bitcoin's associations to name/identity is due to the square-peg-round-hole problem of many developed countries now placing their structures/legislation onto Bitcoin and the purchase trading of it, not any inherent flaw in Bitcoin itself.
If people will give identity to these exchanges/circle etc. to play with the ball, then what does anyone expect? Kind of disappointed with Snowden now really. I mean anyone can throw a sound bite out there like: “some very interesting things,”
What does that even mean? It's like me saying in the dawning age of home computers that they'll be able to do some 'very interesting things' one day. Anyone could have said it. I expected more from Snowden to be honest.
Jump to: