Quote from: barryblogs on February 06, 2014, 11:49:10 PM

So if both authors are biased, who is to be believed? Either way, I found both articles to be extremely interesting.

I'm biased about this too, but it's fair to say that the answer is "neither". It's a question of preference to be honest. You'll get a different kind of commerce and a different kind society out of each approach if you apply them wholesale. It's not so hard to imagine the Casey scenario: we're living it right now, it's all that most people know. The Andreesen scenario is part pre-19th century, and part unknown Blade Runner futuristic. The bitcoin advocates are saying that the futuristic scenario is more appealing. I'm more than open to trying it out, at least.

Quote from: barryblogs on February 06, 2014, 11:49:10 PM

I'm still new to bitcoin but there are a number of things I've been wondering about:

1. Is the author accurate when he describes what would have happened at Target had its customers used bitcoins instead of credit cards?

2. I had read about that guy who accidentally threw away the wrong hard drive, and he lost $7 or $8 million dollars worth of bitcoins. If it's digital, why can't it be reinstated.

3. With everyone from Google, to Twitter to Target being hacked these days, what's to protect Bitcoin from being hacked? If it's gone, it's gone.

Still new to bitcoin but I'm trying to get my head around all this.

Basically, the technology bitcoin is based on changes a lot of pre-conceptions about digital technology.

The hack at Target wouldn't have been possible, that's true, but the newer card based technology could do a good enough job at stopping that too.

With the hard drive thing, that guy threw away the only copy of his wallet, which has the key to spend the bitcoin on the network. So if you've got another copy of the wallet, then yep, it is digital so it can be reinstated. But don't throw away your only copy like that guy, this is money, and the only person with the key to unlock spending it should be yourself.

Hacking bitcoin? It's the strongest security model out there, and it uses the strongest building blocks available to achieve that strong security model. This is particularly effective, as if one of the separate building blocks gets hacked, then if a system that relied solely on that one part for it's security would be hacked altogether. But bitcoin has multiple levels to it's security, arranged in a really innovative way. That's part of why it's getting so much wide-eyed attention, because the people that understand how innovative the security model is are pretty overwhelmed by how smart it is. I think it's probably fair to say that there's nothing more difficult to hack. And if it can be done, banking and the standard payments services, and possibly the security of the internet as a whole would also be in major trouble.