Topic: What are the biggestest threats to Bitcoin? - page 8. (Read 6973 times)
Bugs can be much more dangerous than any type of governmental interference. Imagine a previously unknown bug which makes counterfeiting and double spending possible. It will destroy Bitcoin.
I believe also, massive cases like Silk Road would threaten Bitcoin because governments would ban it as a mean of money laundering.
for all you noobs
1. if a bug did exist - it will be patched within a short period ( check out the 1mb limit fork and the heartbleed for examples of speedy patches)
2a. if ISP's blocked certain ports, then bitcoin can still work by sending API's to websites (PUSHtx to pools and blockchain.info)
2b. changing the ports to a different number that is not blocked takes only seconds too
3. altcoins - these are separate to bitcoin, meaning an altcoin cannot destroy the bitcoin code, it can only persuade people to change what they are hoarding. NXT is purely an altcoin even worse its centralized under the guise of blockchain 2.0 /bitcoin 2.0.. they are really trying to push their advertising campaign to will people over, yet people can see through the sells pitch. meaning right now nothing truly beats bitcoin
now my main concern is 51% attacks, by this i do not mean someone buying enough equipment to own more then 51% of the network.. i mean the easier method. bribing just 3 people (mining pool owners) to change their mining scripts.
1. if a bug did exist - it will be patched within a short period ( check out the 1mb limit fork and the heartbleed for examples of speedy patches)
2a. if ISP's blocked certain ports, then bitcoin can still work by sending API's to websites (PUSHtx to pools and blockchain.info)
2b. changing the ports to a different number that is not blocked takes only seconds too
3. altcoins - these are separate to bitcoin, meaning an altcoin cannot destroy the bitcoin code, it can only persuade people to change what they are hoarding. NXT is purely an altcoin even worse its centralized under the guise of blockchain 2.0 /bitcoin 2.0.. they are really trying to push their advertising campaign to will people over, yet people can see through the sells pitch. meaning right now nothing truly beats bitcoin
now my main concern is 51% attacks, by this i do not mean someone buying enough equipment to own more then 51% of the network.. i mean the easier method. bribing just 3 people (mining pool owners) to change their mining scripts.
Anything that threatens the fungible nature of Bitcoin. See my signature.
You mean Mike Hearn?What is more concerning is the idea that the goobermint may someday (probably years from now at the rate they move) pass laws concerning this and try to create classes of coins: "dirty", "clean", "bad", "good" and so on.
We should take this opportunity to implement automatic mixing and automatic tainting of all coins so that by the time they get around to trying to force something like this on us it will be too late.
Threat? Well, peer to peer networks are hard to kill. And bitcoin is more than just a peer to peer network so it's more complicated. But imagine if nothing had changed since 2009-2010. If no further development was done, if no exchanges were made and bitcoin had no real world value not as many people would get involved. Also some early investors promoted bitcoin in it's early stages.
Do you remember the BOOM after Cyprus's bankruptcy? Media attention has helped much!
Do you remember the BOOM after Cyprus's bankruptcy? Media attention has helped much!
More bugs is likely to come out, it's just a matter of time.
Can you name two major bugs in the core Bitcoin code in the last four years? Not just any bug but one that was a threat to the Bitcoin network.I ask for two since there was only one that I know of.
More bugs is likely to come out, it's just a matter of time.
Sure. That's the nature of software development. There are currently 375 open issues logged at Github: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues. But the OP was looking for problems which couldn't be overcome - and a bug that bad is pretty hard for me to imagine after Heartbleed, and the speed with which it was addressed by most developers and sys admins.
Loss of net neutrality? maybe?
I worry that ISPs in the future will block ports or otherwise try impeding bitcoin network traffic.
I worry that ISPs in the future will block ports or otherwise try impeding bitcoin network traffic.
Yeah this has the potential to be a problem. It all depends on how far they take it. Now, with a distributed p2p protocol like Bitcoin, there is little chance that this could affect the framework itself. However, if ISPs started targeting sites that accept bitcoin or deal in bitcoin transactions and transfers, then we've got a potential problem. Worst case scenario is that Bitcoin takes on more of a blacklist status and ISPs start all out targeting related services. If this happens though, you can bet there are going to be a lot bigger problems. Essentially, in order to squelch Bitcoin, you will have to effectively block free speech through the internet and I really don't see that happening. It has worked so well with bitTorrent
More bugs is likely to come out, it's just a matter of time.
As for bugs in Bitcoin, don't developers test for bugs in clones of Bitcoin..
It doesn't matter, do they test or not, because they don't go ahead of bitcoin development. And most of them are not capable of thorough testing, all they are able to do is just copy/paste code, clone repos, change several numeric parameters, and that's it. And usually they are not even able to merge code improvements from Bitcoin to their clones in timely manner. Basically, changes are first tested on Bitcoin, and then, sooner or later (maybe never) get incorporated into their code.Additionally all the clones have much much lower tps rate, i.e. their nets are working under much less load, and bugs are less likely to come out.
Anything that threatens the fungible nature of Bitcoin. See my signature.
You mean Mike Hearn? 
Loss of net neutrality? maybe?
I worry that ISPs in the future will block ports or otherwise try impeding bitcoin network traffic.
I worry that ISPs in the future will block ports or otherwise try impeding bitcoin network traffic.
Bitcoin p2p code or BTC the money which you spend?
The frauds, thefts and major scams have set-back BTC a lot, since "we" have a bad reputation.
Fortunately the competition is paper money.
The frauds, thefts and major scams have set-back BTC a lot, since "we" have a bad reputation.
Fortunately the competition is paper money.
People who do not spend it
Seems like no one has come up with a genuinely scary enough threat to Bitcoin, I take it that people that claim there is a a lot of risk in Bitcoin apart from it's fluctuating price are merely spreading FUD?
As for bugs in Bitcoin, don't developers test for bugs in clones of Bitcoin..
As for bugs in Bitcoin, don't developers test for bugs in clones of Bitcoin..
Bitcoin clones. They are the biggest threat not only to Bitcoin but to cryptocurrencyes movement in general.
Do not agree. Currently there are what, 50 alt currencies. Or is it 100? Or is it 25? See? It matters so little that we don't even really care how many alts there are.We don't need too many of them to destroy everything. Even 1 clone could be enough.
BTW, I think there are now significanly more than 200 alternate cyprocurrencies, exact number indeed doesn't matter. Maybe 80% or so of them are Bitcoin clones. The rest are clones of several other key cryptocurrencyes which became centers their own swarms of clones (parasites). I can name a couple of them: PPC, NXT. May be there are more.
BTW Quantum computers are the least of our worries. First, they do not exist. Second, when/if they do they would not pose a threat to Bitcoin for a very long time - enough time for Bitcoin to adapt if necessary.
Bitcoin clones. They are the biggest threat not only to Bitcoin but to cryptocurrencyes movement in general.
Do not agree. Currently there are what, 50 alt currencies. Or is it 100? Or is it 25? See? It matters so little that we don't even really care how many alts there are.
(Kind of) Playing Devil's Advocate here, but - what kind of bugs in the code would cause a problem that couldn't be overcome? Particularly post-Heartbleed I'm very impressed with the online world's resilience. Bugs in, say, Bitcoin-QT would only affect people using it - people with their BTC in an offline wallet wouldn't be directly affected (though they might be affected by a fall in price resulting from the bad publicity).
Thanks, I'm not quite sure i understand that term even though I checked the definition.
Basically if you have to defer to a third party "authority" in order to determine the value of something it is not fungible.Take USD for example. They are fungible. If I send you $100 you are never going to say "I don't want those $100, send me a different $100"
Diamonds are not fungible. We have to defer to a rating authority in order to determine the value. If I send you a diamond you may very well send it back saying "I don't like that one, send me a different one"
Money is fungible. Bitcoin needs to remain fungible. If Bitcoin is not fungible it is no longer money and becomes a collectible.
Jump to: