Merged Bitcoin - Part 3

[dirtywick]

if you thought i was agreeing that cash transactions are irreversible in that exchange i’ll be happy to clear up that’s not what i was agreeing to

 

[dirtywick]

Morning Minute: The Coldcard Bitcoin Hack Nears $114 Million in Potential Losses - Decrypt

Self-custody is under attack, and it's becoming increasingly clear that AI is one of crypto's leading threats.

decrypt.co

coldcard hack is at $114m now

 

[jeremyp]

It couldn't replace all other currencies because of its limited transaction rate (a function of the block size and rate of block generation) which is microscopic compared to the volume of financial transactions in the world. Libertarians might be too stupid to realize this but Nakamoto would certainly have done the maths before releasing the code and generating the first block.

Funny that. None of the crypto bros seemed to care about that when Bitcoin was popular.

So why would Nakamoto launch a digital currency with such a limited transaction rate?

I don't know. Why don't you ask him?

I believe that he released it as a "proof of concept".

Do you have any evidence of that. It doesn't seem to be in the white paper.

It fulfilled the need he set out in his white paper: "What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party". His memo on the genesis block suggests that he also saw the a need to prevent currency dilution (which bitcoin also fulfilled).

Yes, it's hilarious isn't. He completely ignores the problem of the fact that the buyer needs to trust the seller much more than with the current system since, once he has transferred the Bitcoin, he can never get it back.

The reversibility of transactions is a feature, not a bug.

 

[jeremyp]

The price or transaction volumes of bitcoin (which jeremyp used to justify calling bitcoin a "failure") were never part of Nakamoto's original specification.

To be clear: the reason I call Bitcoin a failure is because nobody uses it for the purpose for which it was designed. The price of transactions is part of that but not the whole story.

It doesn't matter that Nakamoto didn't foresee the cost. Many failures occur because the original designer failed to foresee some consequence of their design.

He proved that the technology for a "peerless" transfer system can be made to work. That is the very definition of success.

No he didn't. His technology manifestly fails to do what he designed it for: be a n electronic cash system. That's the very definition of failure.

 

[dirtywick]

To be clear: the reason I call Bitcoin a failure is because nobody uses it for the purpose for which it was designed. The price of transactions is part of that but not the whole story.

It doesn't matter that Nakamoto didn't foresee the cost. Many failures occur because the original designer failed to foresee some consequence of their design.

No he didn't. His technology manifestly fails to do what he designed it for: be a n electronic cash system. That's the very definition of failure.

and this coldcard wallet hack is bitcoin working exactly as designed as well. not your keys, not your coins, the code is law. self custody, no trusted third party.

so, what a great success

 

[psionl0]

Funny that. None of the crypto bros seemed to care about that when Bitcoin was popular.

Who cares what the "crypto bros" have to say?

The reversibility of transactions is a feature, not a bug.

If you want a trusted third party to be able to reverse a transaction on your say so then don't use cash or crypto.

His technology manifestly fails to do what he designed it for: be a n electronic cash system. That's the very definition of failure.

The white paper doesn't say that. He designed it to be a peerless transfer system.

 

[dirtywick]

what's the title of the whitepaper again? i forgot

 

[psionl0]

what's the title of the whitepaper again? i forgot

Oops! (I must have been thinking of something else).

Even if it didn't end up being primarily used to pay for goods and services, I don't see why this technology can't be described as "electronic cash". Even if it had never interested anybody and had faded into obscurity, it still wouldn't have changed how bitcoin works.

 

[dirtywick]

i think the people that created bitcoin had intended that to be the case when they designed how it worked.

 

[jeremyp]

Who cares what the "crypto bros" have to say?

They are the ones who were hyping this thing up. Not anybody else.

If you want a trusted third party to be able to reverse a transaction on your say so then don't use cash or crypto.

For an online transaction, you absolutely should use crypto(graphy). You shouldn't use crypto coins though and you can't use cash. Yes, actual cash has many of the same drawbacks as cryptocurrency and that is why almost nobody in developed countries uses it anymore.

The white paper doesn't say that. He designed it to be a peerless transfer system.

It's the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ title: Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. You need to stop denying things that are so easily checked.

 

[jeremyp]

Oops! (I must have been thinking of something else).

Even if it didn't end up being primarily used to pay for goods and services, I don't see why this technology can't be described as "electronic cash". Even if it had never interested anybody and had faded into obscurity, it still wouldn't have changed how bitcoin works.

You can describe Cybertruck as a car or even a truck. That doesn't mean it is not a failure.

 

[dudalb]

In the end, Bicoin will be just another Libertarian fantasy that did not work in the real world.

 

[psionl0]

You can describe Cybertruck as a car or even a truck. That doesn't mean it is not a failure.

It is not about what name you give it. It is not even about whether it becomes a commercial success or not. If it has the properties or performs the functions that you set out for it then that can be described as "success".

 

[jeremyp]

It is not about what name you give it. It is not even about whether it becomes a commercial success or not. If it has the properties or performs the functions that you set out for it then that can be described as "success".

Bitcoin doesn't have the properties or perform the functions that were set out for it. It doesn't perform as electronic cash. You could argue it's a quite a good niche gambling platform, but that wasn't a design goal.

Bitcoin is a failure. Not only is it not being used for design purpose, but it has failed to gain traction in the mainstream or act as a catalyst to create better more scalable crypto currencies.

 

[dirtywick]

plus in totality it's been more damaging to society than helpful. it's a resource intensive negative sum gambling game that, as a biproduct, enables criminal activity. psion doesn't like that i'm sharing a lot of negative news about bitcoin and crypto, but i've been challenging him this whole time to produce some of the positive stuff. i can't find it.

go ahead and try for yourself

 

[psionl0]

Bitcoin doesn't have the properties or perform the functions that were set out for it.

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?

It doesn't perform as electronic cash.

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"?

You could argue it's a quite a good niche gambling platform, but that wasn't a design goal.

Bitcoin is a failure. Not only is it not being used for design purpose, but it has failed to gain traction in the mainstream or act as a catalyst to create better more scalable crypto currencies.

plus in totality it's been more damaging to society than helpful. it's a resource intensive negative sum gambling game that, as a biproduct, enables criminal activity. psion doesn't like that i'm sharing a lot of negative news about bitcoin and crypto, but i've been challenging him this whole time to produce some of the positive stuff. i can't find it.

go ahead and try for yourself

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.

 

[dirtywick]

being so bad at being a cash network that no one uses it as a cash network isn't one of the things that matters to it's failure and success? that doesn't make sense

 

[dirtywick]

Coldcard Bitcoin Hack: Victims Report Median Loss Of 1 BTC

The amount of Bitcoin stolen has been confirmed at $111 million, but is likely much higher — and could stand at over $130 million.

bitcoinmagazine.com

coldcard hack up to $111m confirmed stolen, but some estimates say it may be as high as $130m

 

[psionl0]

being so bad at being a cash network that no one uses it as a cash network isn't one of the things that matters to it's failure and success? that doesn't make sense

Any claims made by lovers and haters alike about bitcoin that do not fall within the confines of the white paper are irrelevant.

 

[dirtywick]

that also doesn't make sense