Patel
Senior Member
- Mar 1, 2011
- 1,154
- 1,519
Sounds like you've been reading too many FUD articles and basing your opinion from that.
BitCoin and Cryptocurrencies - Will they fail? My 3 Predictions!
- Thread starter Wilson Grant Fisk
- Start date
Sounds like you've been reading too many FUD articles and basing your opinion from that.
Abstroose
Elite Member
- Nov 20, 2008
- 2,181
- 3,634
If I had $1000 in PayPal 1 year ago, I would have $1000 today.
If I had $1000 in BTC 1 year ago, I would have $26,600 today.
Apples and oranges. PayPal and Bitcoins are entirely different.
thatotherguy
Power Member
- Mar 4, 2012
- 554
- 258
Very interesting and true.
Macthetrix
Regular Member
- Feb 21, 2013
- 378
- 395
if you can crack bitcoin transactions you can crack normal online banking transactions aswell. So thats not really a point. It is true that the current type of encryption will eventually be cracked when the processing power is big enough. But at the same time you can add to the encryption in the future.
Wilson Grant Fisk
Elite Member
- Nov 10, 2012
- 15,677
- 46,840
Actually it is based on studying the Markets. If you can't see a bubble then I am surprised.
Wilson Grant Fisk
Elite Member
- Nov 10, 2012
- 15,677
- 46,840
I PURPOSEFULLY OVER-SIMPLIFIED THE CRYPTOGRAPHY AND CRYPTANALYSIS ASPECT BECAUSE I DID NOT WANT TO OVERCOMPLICATE MATTERS. WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SHOW IS THAT THERE WOULD BE DESIGN FLAWS IN THE SYSTEM SOMEWHERE.
Bitcoin Foundation Responds To -- But Doesn't Deny -- Cornell Study's Claim It Could Collapse
The Bitcoin Foundation — a sort of non-profit industry lobby group for the online crypto-currency — has welcomed an academic paper
published by researchers at Cornell University which claims Bitcoin could collapseif "selfish" owners begin colluding with each other. But the foundation did not specifically deny its claims.
In a blog post, foundation board member Gavin Andresen says:
Let me start with how fantastic it is that we're seeing more academic interest and research in Bitcoin-the-system. In the coming months, I expect we'll be seeing a lot more research claiming to have found ways of making various pieces of Bitcoin better. Some of it will even turn out to be both practical and correct.
He doesn't specifically knock down the Cornell paper's central claim, which is that Bitcoin "miners," who create new Bitcoins by crunching code which churns out the currency according to a set formula that prevents inflation, could collapse the system by colluding until one group of collaborators owns a majority of all Bitcoins. Andresen does express doubts about the study:
... I'm not going to write about the specific claims in the paper; lots of smart people are, or soon will be, thinking really hard about the issues raised and whether or not the researcher's model matches reality. However, it is good to note that in my initial review, I believe the paper's assertion of a fundamental flaw is based on some over-simplified assumptions about how the bitcoin mining market works.
What's interesting about the foundation's forthcoming response — or lack thereof — is how it will advance the debate over whether Bitcoin is a reliable non-sovereign internet currency, or merely the ultimate example of a fiat currency (that only exists because people believe in it) caught in a speculative bubble. Because if the Cornell researchers are right, and the people minting new Bitcoins can control the market for them, then Bitcoin is essentially worthless, because who would want to make transactions in a currency whose value was decided by a single entity?
Source:http://www.businessinsider.com.au/b...ornell-studys-claim-it-could-collapse-2013-11
[h=1]Cornell researchers teach Bitcoin attack lesson in selfish mining[/h]Phys.org) —Bitcoin is a digital currency that has, well, gained currency, as a medium of exchange. Now two computer science researchers from Cornell find that this extensive ecosystem can be undermined and they outline how in a paper that they have posted on arXiv.
The paper, "Majority is not Enough: Bitcoin Mining is Vulnerable," is by Ittay Eyal, a postdoc member of the Computer Sciences department at Cornell and Emin Gun Sirer, associate professor at Cornell. According to the two researchers, "Empirical evidence shows that Bitcoin miners behave strategically and form pools. Specifically, because rewards are distributed at infrequent, random intervals miners form mining pools in order to decrease the variance of their income rate. Within such pools, all members contribute to the solution of each cryptopuzzle, and share the rewards proportionally to their contributions. To the best of our knowledge, so far such pools have been benign and followed the protocol." Nonetheless, they describe a strategy that could be used by a minority pool to obtain more revenue than the pool's fair share, that is, more than its ratio of the total mining power. "The key idea behind this strategy, called Selfish Mining, is for a pool to keep its discovered blocks private, thereby intentionally forking the chain," they wrote. This selfishness can come out of people getting together to siphon off more money than a fair share for mining activities.
The authors wrote that central to Bitcoin operations is a public log called the blockchain where all transactions are recorded. The security of the blockchain is established by a chain of cryptographic puzzles solved by a loosely organized network of participants called miners. The two researchers present an attack with which colluding miners obtain a revenue larger than their fair share. "This attack can have significant consequences for Bitcoin," they warned, where rational miners join selfish miners and the colluding group increases increase in size until it becomes a majority. At this point, they said, the Bitcoin system ceases to be a decentralized currency.
A Scientific American report on their findings further explained how damage might occur: Instead of releasing solutions to solved cryptopuzzles. The selfish crew can mine a branch in secret, hiding it from honest miners. The group would then get a higher share of coins than is fair for the resources they have contributed because they have forced other miners to waste computing power on the original chain. The problem gets worse as the selfish group recruits extra members.
Elsewhere, the two were asked if they were trying to take Bitcoin down with their sober warning. "We're Bitcoin supporters," they blogged, " and are working to make the currency stronger against a broader set of possible misbehaviors than what has been considered so far." They proposed in their paper a practical modification to the Bitcoin protocol that protects against selfish mining pools. Can Bitcoin remain a viable currency? Sirer said, "Probably. We have shown that as long as selfish miners are below a certain threshold, they will not succeed."
Source:http://phys.org/news/2013-11-cornell-bitcoin-lesson-selfish.html
[h=1]Bitcoin As A Much Borader Disruptive Technology[/h]
There are still a lot of questions as to why Bitcoin should be considered and radical, disruptive technology. Right now, it seems that most people are focused on the fact that Bitcoin is being used to challenge the fiat currency system. Many people think that Bitcoin will fail at that endeavor. They may be wrong, or they may be right. The point is: it doesn't matter if Bitcoin overthrows fiat currencies. Why? There were a couple of articles that recently talked about a couple of subjects related to Bitcoin that put the whole thing in a completely different context and are well worth considering.
In If Bitcoin goes to zero, what will be left? More than you think Shakil Kahn (a Spotify investor) tells use that he actually expects Bitcoin to go to zero, not just a few times, but many times. In a talk given with Jeremy Allaire, the two put forth the concept that what is important about Bitcoin isn't the value of the currency.
Instead, they see a lot of innovation that is happening around Bitcoin that they believe will survive even if Bitcoin itself fails. And, that is what is important about Bitcoin: the disruption that it is posing to the business world. The idea that remittances, and other forms of financial transactions might be handled based on the Bitcoin protocol in the future. The idea that eCommerce and POS systems will be changed by Bitcoin. Basically in the long term, there is a whole business ecosystem that is being built around Bitcoin.
Albert Wenger of Union Square Ventures posted an interesting article that delves a little bit into the reason behind why some investors are now interested in Bitcoin: Bitcoin As Protocol.
In the article, Albert points to one of the key features of Bitcoin: the blockchain. The blockchain is a public ledger. Ledgers have the quality that they are single entry systems: every transaction gets a single entry. If there is a mistake in the ledger, it cannot be changed, instead another entry has to be made to correct the previous mistake. This provides a historical record of the transactions.
The Bitcoin blockchain functions in the same way: a single entry is made for each transaction. A hash is generated for each of the transactions, guaranteeing that the transaction cannot be tampered with without regenerating all of the hash codes of all the transactions in the blockchain, and distributing all the replacement hashes to all of the nodes in the network.
That's a feat that even the NSA isn't likely to have accomplished. Of course, this could be wrong, the NSA is pretty resourceful, but still it seems highly unlikely. And, there is strong enough reason to believe that the encryption technology used in the Bitcoin protocol will remain strong the next 15+ years.
Back to Albert Wenger's article. The fact that this fundamental accounting principal is actually codified as part of the Bitcoin protocol is the key. It means that the transactions on the ledger / blockchain has an expressive power that other protocols lack. And that is a bit deal because the ability to use this type of expression has other possibilities.
Enter Namecoin, and Alt Coin that is the first to extend the underlying protocol concepts of Bit Coin into a new area. The idea that this kind of technology can be used to link virtual assets to the block chain / ledger. In the case of Namecoin they have started with the internet domain name system (aka DNS). The idea is that you use Namecoin(s) to purchase domain names. By purchasing your domain name with a Namecoin, your ownership of the domain is linked cryptographically to you and no one else.
This means that what were once virtual assets, or services that were provided now have attributes closer to a tangible asset. No one can just go into the domain name registrar system and change an entry without decrypting all the transactions before and after the target entry.
This would mean that governments or private entities could not simply take over a domain and take it completely off the internet without going through proper channels. Instead they would have to do the work of finding the individual(s) and arresting them, shutting their business down, etc.
This would prevent governments from using things like CISPA and TPP to break the fundamental underlying structure of the Internet. It would, in essence, make the Internet go from being a system provided by countries and businesses to it's own entity, with a distributed system that no one government, or even group of governments could control.
This is why the technology behind Bitcoin (and by extension, Namecoin) is very important and very exciting to a lot of people now, especially investors. They can see that the idea of extending the market place with a virtual currency that changes the properties of non-tangible assets into something closer to tangible assets is a huge innovation. And, that is why Bitcoin failing / going to zero makes no difference: the underlying technology has implications that are far ranging.
My bet about this concept is that we will see more and more merging of new technologies like BitTorrent, TOR, Bitcoin / Namecoin and other protocols to form a new infrastructure. The only question is how long is it going to take? Will the rate of innovation be able to out-pace the determination of governments to disrupt and irreparably damage the internet before it happens? That remains to be seen.
Source:http://cerebralrift.org/2013/11/07/bitcoin-as-a-much-borader-disruptive-technology/
Last edited:
victor1234
Registered Member
- Nov 22, 2009
- 98
- 26
Lol you think GOVERNMENTS can stand in the way of decentralized tech hackers who found a way to replace the Fed?
Like how they decided to ban alcohol? That worked great right?
Cryptocoins will grow and evolve while the dying systems based on government fiat crumble to dust. All the guns and force in the world won't save them.
Like how they decided to ban alcohol? That worked great right?
Cryptocoins will grow and evolve while the dying systems based on government fiat crumble to dust. All the guns and force in the world won't save them.
Svettod
Junior Member
- Jun 19, 2010
- 189
- 56
Wilson Grant Fisk
Elite Member
- Nov 10, 2012
- 15,677
- 46,840
[h=1]Bitcoin is back: Online currency gaining traction[/h]Source: http://hereisthecity.com/en-gb/2013/11/07/bitcoin-is-back-online-currency-gaining-traction/
Oh, look the Hedge Fund Managers love the BTC market, oh hold on didn't they also love the subprime mortgage market?
Oh, look the Hedge Fund Managers love the BTC market, oh hold on didn't they also love the subprime mortgage market?
punkrock159
Newbie
- Aug 25, 2013
- 24
- 4
I think bitcoin will continue to serve its purpose but mining bitcoins yourself is a bad idea. Just my opinion. I'd rather buy bitcoins and use it for whatever I need to use it for. Regarding the deflation of bitcoin, It will never happen. 
Wilson Grant Fisk
Elite Member
- Nov 10, 2012
- 15,677
- 46,840
[h=1]What Does Bitcoin Have to Do to Achieve Broad Acceptance?[/h]
New research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago sees a complicated road to broader acceptance of the privately created digital currency known as bitcoin.
Reuters In a report released Thursday, Chicago Fed senior researcher Francois Velde didn't immediately dismiss the newfangled currency, which unlike the vast majority of the world's other forms of money, doesn't rely on a central bank or government to issue it.
In the currency's favor, bitcoin "represents a remarkable conceptual and technical achievement, which may well be used by existing financial institutions, which could issue their own bitcoins, or even by governments themselves," the economist wrote.
But things will have to change for bitcoin to achieve broader acceptance.
"So far, the uses of bitcoin as a medium of exchange appear limited, particularly if one excludes illegal activities," the economist wrote. He notes that as things currently stand bitcoin is simply inconvenient to use because common payment systems can't utilize it, and many people don't want anything to do with it.
Mr. Velde also notes one reason it attracts some is its lack of connection to a government. But that's an issue over the longer run. "Throughout most of Western history, the state has involved itself in money," the economist said. The Federal Reserve has been the creator of U.S. money since its establishment a century ago.
Bitcoin is not a threat to the dollar or the euro or any other major currency as things now stand. The report estimates the total outstanding value for bitcoin stands at around $1 billion based on an approximation of its exchange rate with the dollar, compared with the $1.2 trillion value of total U.S. currency.
The report reckons that if bitcoin proves at all successful, it will not be able to dodge the connection to the taxation and banking authorities.
"Should bitcoin become widely accepted, it is unlikely that it will remain free of government intervention, if only because the governance of the bitcoin code and network is opaque and vulnerable," Mr. Velde wrote.
Source:http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/11/07/what-does-bitcoin-have-to-do-to-achieve-broad-acceptance/
[h=1][/h]
New research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago sees a complicated road to broader acceptance of the privately created digital currency known as bitcoin.
In the currency's favor, bitcoin "represents a remarkable conceptual and technical achievement, which may well be used by existing financial institutions, which could issue their own bitcoins, or even by governments themselves," the economist wrote.
But things will have to change for bitcoin to achieve broader acceptance.
"So far, the uses of bitcoin as a medium of exchange appear limited, particularly if one excludes illegal activities," the economist wrote. He notes that as things currently stand bitcoin is simply inconvenient to use because common payment systems can't utilize it, and many people don't want anything to do with it.
Mr. Velde also notes one reason it attracts some is its lack of connection to a government. But that's an issue over the longer run. "Throughout most of Western history, the state has involved itself in money," the economist said. The Federal Reserve has been the creator of U.S. money since its establishment a century ago.
Bitcoin is not a threat to the dollar or the euro or any other major currency as things now stand. The report estimates the total outstanding value for bitcoin stands at around $1 billion based on an approximation of its exchange rate with the dollar, compared with the $1.2 trillion value of total U.S. currency.
The report reckons that if bitcoin proves at all successful, it will not be able to dodge the connection to the taxation and banking authorities.
"Should bitcoin become widely accepted, it is unlikely that it will remain free of government intervention, if only because the governance of the bitcoin code and network is opaque and vulnerable," Mr. Velde wrote.
Source:http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/11/07/what-does-bitcoin-have-to-do-to-achieve-broad-acceptance/
[h=1][/h]
Bitcoin has survived several bubble so far, and will likely survive many more. In fact, if you look at the past bitcoin bubbles, the value of bitcoin AFTER the bubble GREATLY exceeds the value of bitcoin before the bubble
None of the points in this thread amount to any credible threat against bitcoin, and really just show how little the people in this thread actually know about bitcoin.
Last edited:
they banned cannabis, and no one smokes cannabis, right?
they banned pirated digital goods, and no one pirates digital goods, do they?
they've banned money laundering, but no one does that...
now that you mention it, banning Bitcoin will probably be the move that takes it mainstream!
Nigel Farage
BANNED
- Feb 8, 2012
- 565
- 1,502
I bet BitCoin is worth more than $1,000 in 5 years.
Wilson Grant Fisk
Elite Member
- Nov 10, 2012
- 15,677
- 46,840
I bet you $1000 that by November 07 2018 BTC would have collapsed.
Another Crypto-Currency MAY have taken it's place by then.
I am due to release my own Coin in the New Year, if I am wrong I will make payment in that.
I am calling it BHWCoin.
Patel
Senior Member
- Mar 1, 2011
- 1,154
- 1,519
bubble collapse does not equal that bitcoin failed, there will be many more bubbles and corrections to come.
Wilson Grant Fisk
Elite Member
- Nov 10, 2012
- 15,677
- 46,840
Yes, I concur with this.
How can the government control something that has no central control nor can it every control? If BTC goes down it will be
from within and as long as they control mining I do not see how. Sure it could be worth $10 one day and many people could lose
money but as long as it is around it can have value. The value in bitcoin to start was anonymity.
For those talking about quantum computing. Erm I am sure years and years when this happens BTC and everyone will have
technology just as advance to counter act it.
from within and as long as they control mining I do not see how. Sure it could be worth $10 one day and many people could lose
money but as long as it is around it can have value. The value in bitcoin to start was anonymity.
For those talking about quantum computing. Erm I am sure years and years when this happens BTC and everyone will have
technology just as advance to counter act it.