Bitcoin Is Not as Secure, Unregulated, or Lucrative as You Might Think
wired.com
wired.com
It is just a bunch of random pieces of information spliced in with random pieces of information specifically about bitcoins, throw in a link-baity title, and that is this article.
What? That was tax money. Further, a true destruction of those bills would not be a loss, it would be a gain to everyone else with dollars.
It disappears in Iraq. What, you think they're gonna burn it for warmth? Those bucks are coming back.
(I am an admirer of your work and writing BTW.)
How the Internet is buggy?
A simple example: there are some TCP/IP stacks where the urgent pointer indicates the last byte of urgent data, and some where it indicates the first byte after the last byte of urgent data. Obviously these aren't the same thing, and only one is correct according to the standard, but both kinds of stacks are (I think) still in use. We get around this by basically not using urgent data in our TCP streams.
BGP is a "trust" system where you just assume your peers tell the truth and action their routing changes accordingly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_hijacking#Public_incidents
DNS has no spoof protection and due to UDP can be used to DoS third parties by mislabelling your packets and requesting large records.
SMTP has no built in way to verify the sender actually works for the domain it claims to work for (see SPF and DKIM as potential workarounds).
Everything is being worked on and improved. But the broken stuff is still a large party of the internet today.
Maybe more than anything, people abuse what the Internet is for. Hospitals running their patient records over devices on the public Internet (that are almost certainly full of exploitable security holes on some port, which is probably an Internet "bug" in how easy it is to just barrage all the ports on a machine to find some exploitable application if they aren't proactive with managing the security).
I would have agreed with you back when IE 6 was still a "thing." But these days with strict XHTML, CSS, for appearance/layout, and JS for logic we seem to actually be at a very good place for moving forward.
I'd even go as far as to say that XHTML/CSS and JS do a better job separating responsibilities than many programming frameworks I've used do.
Do I think they're perfect? No. In fact I hate typeless languages like JS. But it is "good enough."
So is money.
"life doesn't work perfectly, it just works."
You could say life works better than dead.
One thing the Internet does show is that a system doesn't have to be perfect to be robust and incredibly useful. In fact, worse is often better in that way too. If IP were orders of magnitude more complex to deal with all its potential edge cases, it likely would not have been as successful.
Possibly the most salient and eloquent quote I've ever heard regarding bitcoin.
I can write about anything and call it buggy. Monsoons are buggy since don't arrive on time. Nile is buggy because it floods. Electricity is buggy because it has shock risk. Water is buggy because it can harbor mosquitoes.
They are unnecessary if vendors directly accept bitcoin, at which point you can have your wallet, you can be connected to arbitrary nodes in the network, and you can spend the money from that wallet in transactions with any other wallet and verify against only ~8 nodes in the network to verify with reasonable certainty.
> It’s all fiat.
This is very true, and a lot of people ignore it. Props to the article for making a deal of it. Gold is not worth a thousandth its current market value if people didn't treat it as a scarce shiny valuable and instead treated it as a good conductor or flaky metal.
That's a stretch. If it were not valuable monetarily, its price would be similar to other difficult-to-extract, heavy metals with a long list of unique properties, like Iridium or Rhenium, neither monetary, and both around $400 an ounce.
Gold is relatively scarce, but about 3-10 times more common in the crust (by ppm on Wikipedia) than Iridium, Rhodium or Rhenium. Production of gold was 55 times higher than Rhenium. I don't know if this because of demand or difficulty of extraction. Rhenium is priced at $142/Troy ounce.
Which is much, much less common.
The future of currency is digital, but it's not peer-to-peer. It's just an international organisation with a big centralised database. You might not like it, but watch it unfold.
Money laundering will be impossible, and there'll be no incentive to hack other people's accounts because all thefts will be reversible (even if the thief then went on to transfer said currency to third parties)
Of course, we're talking about the long-term here. In the next 5-10 years similar systems will be implemented by individual nations. International cooperation will take much longer.
There'll always be an incentive to hack others' accounts.
Long term, actual long term, centralized currencies will not scale. They simply will not be able to.
Noun A scientific procedure undertaken to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact.
Gavin Andresen, the 46-year-old lead software developer for the Bitcoin project, is eager to find the answer. "I'm hoping to learn," he says, whether "a nongovernmental global currency" is possible. "Can you get from where we are to the vision of billions of people all over the world using Bitcoin just like they use any other currency? That's the grand experiment."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732380930457842...
The fact is you don't know anymore than us if govs will shut down the endpoints with "real world", or if BTC will succeed to create its own ecosystem and reach the point where it don't need dollars anymore.
All we can do is argue and convince ourselves if BTC is a good bet or a disastrous bet. Something you obviously can't if you threat everyone insane.
I'd bet my entire Bitcoin wallet on it, but mercifully I don't have one.
In order to become "the future of money", it only need one or two big organization using BTC, a derived one, or their own virtual currency, or to survive to direct organized attacks the day it will obstruct some important people.
In the same way of erlang, ocaml and haskell, seen as futuristic languages, BTC /can/ be a futuristic money.
Of course you don't, you're talking out your ass. Go troll somewhere else.
Yeah, there's that false sense of superiority that makes no sense and makes you a completely troll --- It'd be such a shame for you to have a Bitcoin wallet, huh?
Especially since they take milliseconds to generate, cost nothing, require virtually no effort. Oh wait, you're probably just another person who is jealous because they think they missed their get-rich opportunity and are mad because they don't understand what Bitcoin actually is or how it works.
Bitcoin is a hacker plaything. It has a bunch of known weaknesses, a sketchy history, and an enormous amount of controversy attached to it. Not to mention the future of currency isn't peer-to-peer.
Also, you being overly sensitive to criticism of Bitcoin doesn't make me a troll.
He's not. But you have still to prove you're not a troll. Have a nice day !
He most certainly is. I crack a joke about betting all my holdings of a currency I don't believe in on said currency not being widely adopted, and instead of taking it as the joke it quite obviously is, he kicks off.
All of a sudden I'm "talking out of [my] ass", I'm "trolling", I have a "false sense of superiority", I'm "a completely [sic] troll", and I'm "jealous" and "mad" because I haven't invested in the currency.
Good grief. Someone sure has a lot invested in Bitcoin!
Look, all you can do is make up nonsense about me by assuming that I'm in some financially poor position. I treated my Bitcoin investments the same way I treat my money at the casino (not that I've been more than once). I assume it's gone. And besides, as I've already noted, I'm doing alright.
(personally, $3K is not much money, not to be a jerk)
Now do you actually have something to contribute or are you going to keep inventing personal attacks and repeating "bitcoin sucks lolz"?
>Bitcoin is a hacker plaything. It has a bunch of known weaknesses, a sketchy history, and an enormous amount of controversy attached to it. Not to mention the future of currency isn't peer-to-peer.
You just took Bitcoin's feature list and went "NUH UH". I don't even care that you don't think Bitcoin is the future, but to just ostensibly claim that all cryptocurrency or all peer-to-peer currency is a failure is just incredibly, incredibly stupid and ignorant.
>Also, you being overly sensitive to criticism of Bitcoin doesn't make me a troll.
You've not noted a single criticism. You've made vague references along the lines of "No it sucks because it's bad and it's not good and other people don't like it!!!". You've not made a single coherent argument against Bitcoin itself, cryptocurrency, nor have you given a single reason why a centralized authority is going to win out over peer-to-peer, (especially given the benefits of p2p and it being the whole basis of the excitement around Bitcoin).