Merged Bitcoin - Part 3

[psionl0]

that also doesn't make sense

What doesn't make sense is calling bitcoin a "failure" because it doesn't meet an extra condition that Satoshi Nakamoto didn't set out to address in his white paper.

 

[dirtywick]

it was supposed to be a peer to peer cash system but was too flawed in its design. it doesn’t make sense to ignore that as if achieving design goals aren’t important. this has been explained repeatedly but you just keep ignoring it

 

[psionl0]

it was supposed to be a peer to peer cash system but was too flawed in its design.

You are defining "peer to peer cash system" to mean that its use as a payment for goods and services is (or will become) wide spread. None of that is Nakamoto's claim.

The white paper clearly describes bitcoin as a system where digital tokens can be transferred from digital wallet to digital wallet on the internet without the need for a "trusted third party" and where such transfers can't be reversed by a third party. That is ALL that is relevant.

 

[dirtywick]

that's not all that's relevant, you just keep insisting on it without providing any reasoning behind it even though it doesn't make any sense

 

[psionl0]

that's not all that's relevant, you just keep insisting on it without providing any reasoning behind it even though it doesn't make any sense

It is easy to say that I am not "providing any reasoning" if you don't read what I posted. The only reason that my reasoning doesn't "make any sense" to you is that it doesn't support your false dichotomy that either bitcoin is a widely used global currency or it is a total failure.

 

[dirtywick]

bad design is irrelevant and functioning as designed is the only relevant measure of success because you say so. got it. stupid point but i got it.

 

[dirtywick]

Strategy sells 1,690 bitcoin, raises $653 million from MSTR shares

The company increased its USD reserve to $4.65 billion while reducing its bitcoin holdings to 840,447 BTC

www.coindesk.com

the buy high, sell low, dilute the common stock strategy continues

 

[psionl0]

bad design is irrelevant and functioning as designed is the only relevant measure of success because you say so. got it. stupid point but i got it.

So we have moved on from the question of whether bitcoin is a "failure" or not?

 

[dirtywick]

So we have moved on from the question of whether bitcoin is a "failure" or not?

of course not. the bad design is the reason for it's failure, this has been explained so many times

 

[psionl0]

of course not. the bad design is the reason for it's failure, this has been explained so many times

And that explanation is BS as I have explained many times. You are relying on expectations placed on bitcoin by strangers who had nothing to do with the design or design philosophy of bitcoin to judge whether bitcoin is a failure or not.

Bitcoin is a failure only if it fails to meet the expectations placed on it by its designer.
- The designer never claimed that bitcoin would handle an unlimited number of transactions.
- The designer never claimed that bitcoin would become a widely used global currency.

Bitcoin is proof that financial transfers can be done without any human intervention.

 

[dirtywick]

that's insanely obtuse lol

i'll try one more time i guess

the white paper goes "we are making a peer to peer cash system, here's how it works" and it explains how it works and it works as designed so it functions, but the design makes it so bad at peer to peer cash that it's useless. you're calling that a success because it works as designed and ignoring the peer to peer cash system part, which doesn't make sense. you won't elaborate as to why you can just toss out the clearly stated in the title of the white paper design goal, probably because it hurts your argument and you don't want to lose yet another argument in a long, long string of losses

that was the last time. call it a success if you want, this has been going in circles for far too long

 

[psionl0]

but the design makes it so bad at peer to peer cash that it's useless. you're calling that a success because it works as designed and ignoring the peer to peer cash system part, which doesn't make sense.

Wallet to wallet transfers work. Is that not a "peer to peer cash" system or do you define that as some voodoo magic which bitcoin doesn't do?

Calling bitcoin a "failure" makes about as much sense as calling wireless telegraphy a "failure" because the spark gap transmitters and receivers were so unreliable or calling the motor car a failure because it was noisy, stinky, slow, incredibly expensive etc. The point is that these early protoypess showed that the technology can work and that paved the way for the refinements that followed. Bitcoin is in a similar position. We are seeing the evolution of blockchain technology such as "smart contracts" (Ethereum). Banks are using the Ripple network for international financial transfers which is proving superior to their SWIFT system etc.

that was the last time. call it a success if you want, this has been going in circles for far too long

No it wasn't. You always have to have the last word.

 

[dirtywick]

REKT: Crypto Hack Losses Reach $1.2B in 2026, Coldcard Breach Accounts for 10% | Coldcard Hacks | CryptoRank.io

BitcoinWorld REKT: Crypto Hack Losses Reach $1.2B in 2026, Coldcard Breach Accounts for 10% Blockchain security firm REKT has reported that cryptocurrency

cryptorank.io

bitcoin related hacks at $1.2b for 2026 so far

With 276 hacking incidents and $1.2 billion in losses already recorded in 2026, the crypto industry faces a persistent and evolving security challenge. The Coldcard breach, representing a significant slice of the yearly total, illustrates the potential for high-impact attacks on well-known platforms. As the year progresses, stakeholders must prioritize security enhancements and collaborative threat intelligence to curb these losses and protect users.

self custody is a feature, and the deck is stacked against you

 

[jeremyp]

Are you claiming that bitcoin transfers from wallet to wallet can't be done without requiring a trusted third party or that a third party can reverse a wallet to wallet transfer?

No. I am claiming that trust is still required. The difference is that you have to trust the person from whom you are buying the goods. That’s more problematic than trusting your bank, especially when buying over the internet.

Of course, you do also have to trust the network. If more than half the mining capacity is controlled by (say) the Chinese government, that can do what they like.

This is reminiscent of the endless and pointless debates on this thread about whether bitcoin is a "currency" or not. It invariably became a discussion on the meaning of the word "currency".

So what is your definition of "electronic cash"?

Well I can’t buy goods and services with Bitcoin and being able to buy goods and services with something os integral to it being electronic cash.

The ultimate use of this product or its effect on the finance industry is totally irrelevant. The only thing that matters (in judging whether bitcoin is a success or failure) is whether bitcoin fulfils the design specifications set out for it in the white paper.

No. Something can be a failure even if it meets the design specifications. There are countless examples of things that failed even though they met the design specs.

 

[psionl0]

The difference is that you have to trust the person from whom you are buying the goods.

And when you hand your cold hard cash over to somebody you don't have to trust them?

Well I can’t buy goods and services with Bitcoin and being able to buy goods and services with something os integral to it being electronic cash.

I only need to find one person willing to sell something for bitcoin and your argument is negated.

No. Something can be a failure even if it meets the design specifications. There are countless examples of things that failed even though they met the design specs.

Give us a few examples.

 

[jeremyp]

And when you hand your cold hard cash over to somebody you don't have to trust them?

I don't have to hand my cold hard cash to almost everybody I buy stuff off. In fact, it is impractical to do so when buying services on line.

I only need to find one person willing to sell something for bitcoin and your argument is negated.

No. If I want to use something as cash I need to be able to use it pretty much anywhere where I can use normal cash. I can't use Bitcoin in my local supermarket. It's a failure as cash.

Give us a few examples.

Betamax, Eight track, Zune, Apple Newton, the Jupiter Ace, the German Vengeance weapons, A380.

Those were just off the top of my head.

 

[dirtywick]

the hindenburg

 

[dirtywick]

Third-party breach exposes shipping addresses of 14,000 Trezor buyers

The hardware wallet maker confirmed its devices are safe and no stolen data has appeared for sale yet, but warned users in seven countries of phishing risks.

www.coindesk.com

another cold wallet data breach, this time trezor. one of the fun things about self custody is if you buy a cold wallet, which is considered one of the safest ways to store your crypto to protect it from hackers, scammers, and other thieves, is that if there's a data breach like this and someone gets your home address, they can make really scary threats and maybe even commit violence until you give up your seed phrase

Ledger Exec Says $116 Million Coldcard Breach Exposes AI Threat, Not Hardware Wallet Flaw — BigGo Finance

Ledger executive Ian Rogers said the $116 million Coldcard wallet exploit stemmed from a firmware bug that reduced seed entropy to roughly 40 to 72…

finance.biggo.com

ledger ceo says the coldcard breach is an ai threat, not a problem with the hardware wallets

https://www.certik.com/zh-CN/blog/lessons-from-the-ledger-data-leak-how-to-secure-your-crypto

but ledger had it's own data breach earlier this year, along with other major brands. there's no code solution to keeping your money safe from someone showing up with a gun, besides storing your money with a trusted third party i suppose? but, crytpo exchanges is the closest thing to that, and barring the occasional collapse those still seem kind of risky. what options do you have? it's entirely on you to keep your crypto secure

this is what the article recommends you do to protect your crypto

Securing your digital assets after a data breach requires a multi-layered defense strategy that addresses both your digital identity and your hardware configuration. The priority is to neutralize the exposure of your personal information by implementing email masking techniques. By shifting your exchange accounts to masked aliases, you decouple your primary identity from your crypto holdings. This ensures that even if a specific service is compromised in the future, the leak cannot be traced back to your private inbox.

Moving beyond traditional SMS-based two-factor authentication is now critical. Relying on phone numbers for security is risky due to the prevalence of SIM-swapping attacks. At a minimum, users should transition to authenticator apps such as Google Authenticator or Authy, which generate time-sensitive codes locally on your device.

For those seeking maximum protection, hardware security keys, such as a YubiKey, for exchange logins ensure that a physical device must be present to authorize any access. This multi-layered approach effectively blocks remote hackers from hijacking your accounts, even if they possess your leaked login credentials or attempt to intercept your mobile communications.

this all sounds like a pretty successful cash system you can use for every day purchases. it's no wonder most people just buy crypto and keep it on an exchange and just kind of hope it'll be worth more later. you'd be doomed if you had to use this stuff day to day. it has all the negatives of physical cash plus a bunch of other negatives because it's digital and does nothing to solve any of them

 

[jeremyp]

the hindenburg

Titanic for that matter.

Edit: actually, Hindenburg probably doesn't count because it was originally designed to be used with helium as its lifting gas.

 

[dirtywick]

oh, learn something new every day. i would still count the hindenburg though, the decision to use hydrogen was intentional. or how about those cars that exploded when they were rear ended? or that bridge that wobbled when the wind blew and fell over.

the idea that design flaws are irrelevant to success or failure is bizarre. bad planning is a real thing.