BItcoin misconceptions(nortonwang.com)
nortonwang.com
BItcoin misconceptions
http://nortonwang.com/2013/12/bitcoin-misconceptions/
2 comments
> I think this is actually the most interesting point. The truth is that, no, you don't actually need to use bitcoin right now. And that's different than not needing to use the internet in 1993. Right now, there are plenty of substitute goods - more stable, more accessible currency that is used by more people. In 1993 there weren't that many substitute products for the internet.
There is always a risk with drawing parallels, but the Internet-Bitcoin one isn't entirely silly.
Tell me, right now, what's the easiest way for me to safely send you 5 Euro? I think that would be putting cash in an envelope with enough stamps on it to reach your house? And how would I know you really live there? And how can we both assert that the transaction happened? Perhaps if you happen to live in Europe (as I am) we could do a bank transfer. But what if you're in the USA, or in Africa?
That's something that today can only be done with Bitcoin. Sure it's no panacea (bitcoin), but neither was editing a mail in VI and ELM.
Question is: is there a need for this? I believe so, given that there even supposedly is a need for something like SnapShat.
There is always a risk with drawing parallels, but the Internet-Bitcoin one isn't entirely silly.
Tell me, right now, what's the easiest way for me to safely send you 5 Euro? I think that would be putting cash in an envelope with enough stamps on it to reach your house? And how would I know you really live there? And how can we both assert that the transaction happened? Perhaps if you happen to live in Europe (as I am) we could do a bank transfer. But what if you're in the USA, or in Africa?
That's something that today can only be done with Bitcoin. Sure it's no panacea (bitcoin), but neither was editing a mail in VI and ELM.
Question is: is there a need for this? I believe so, given that there even supposedly is a need for something like SnapShat.
>That's because with POS systems, you're not waiting for 6 confirmations. It's just assumed that you won't try to double spend your coins, and that no forks or orphans in the block chain happen. This is not 100% reliable - if you wanted a guaranteed, irreversable transaction immediately, well, you're out of luck. Permanent or immediate: pick one.
Actually, in absence of double spends, forks or orphans are innocent: valid transactions (w.r.t a chain) that are not part of a block will be picked up eventually by the main chain. So there's only an (expensive/complicated) double spend risk, and not a (more common) orphan block risk.
Actually, in absence of double spends, forks or orphans are innocent: valid transactions (w.r.t a chain) that are not part of a block will be picked up eventually by the main chain. So there's only an (expensive/complicated) double spend risk, and not a (more common) orphan block risk.
I think this is actually the most interesting point. The truth is that, no, you don't actually need to use bitcoin right now. And that's different than not needing to use the internet in 1993. Right now, there are plenty of substitute goods - more stable, more accessible currency that is used by more people. In 1993 there weren't that many substitute products for the internet.
Said another way: I wanted to do something like send a text string to another person in 1993, the internet was my only option. But if I want to do something like purchase an item right now: there are tons of other ways of doing it.
So, In order to convince me that I need to use bitcoin, the benefits of using it need to outweigh the costs, risks and hassle of converting my money.
From a ideological perspective, I think this really appeals to the HN community (including me). But from a practical standpoint, I can't see this catching on with enough average consumers to really become a stable currency.