Quote from: 2112 on October 23, 2011, 09:25:21 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on October 23, 2011, 07:36:46 PM

did i not say it right? how about the first p2p file sharing system that prevents copying? how would you say it?

I really don't know what you are trying to convey.

first of all, even tho we had that one run in a while back, i've learned to respect your postings based on a technical perspective. you understand the code better than most around here. at first i just thought you were another shill based on following Nagle but i no longer see that to be the case. i still think he's dangerous to follow.

second, what i mean by the above is that the Bitcoin sourcecode appears to be a first in that it allows a peer to peer public network the ability to prevent the copying of files (Bitcoins) for double spending. perhaps better said, it prevents the rewriting of tx's in the blockchain ledger that are shared across the internet btwn multiple anonymous computers to prevent double spending through this same rewriting of transactions. Satoshi has accomplished this primarily by the use of hashing, a one way complex mathematical function based on SHA-256 and ECDSA, that was necessary to introduce randomness to the production of a number anywhere btwn 0 and 2 ²⁵⁶ power when solving blocks. each guess is based on hashing the block headers data consisting of the previous block hash, timestamp, current tx's, and a nonce, with the only change btwn each guess coming from an incremental change in the nonce. the solving of these blocks allows the reward of an ever decreasing number of Bitcoins (every 4 yrs) to the node that is forced to guess, as oppose to hack or find a shortcut, enough times (proof of work) to come up with a numerical result that is below a targeted numerical result to keep the number of blocks down to an introduction level of approx 10 minutes. this target numerical result is adjusted every 2 wks to keep this 10 min interval intact. this fixed introduction level allows a predictable amount of inflation that investors should respect, not criticize. once a block is solved, at least 50% of the other nodes in the Bitcoin network, that have a copy of the accepted (longest) blockchain have to verify that this node is not cheating by trying to rewrite tx's or double spend. this is based on a majority of nodes >50% accepting this block. b/c this proof of work is theoretically impractical to skirt, until perhaps a quantum computer is invented (even then this is disputed), the only way for a rational miner to pay off the costs of his hardware, electricity, and time involved in solving blocks is to go along with the program and generate as many Bitcoins as he can to pay for these expenses. they are especially economically incentivized by an increase in the Bitcoin price in USD terms for as the higher the price goes, the more they will make. in doing so he ends up supporting the network by verifying tx's, providing security for the network, and increasing the costs (computational power) associated with any attacker trying to undermine his work. i know you know all this but you're testing my understanding here of whats going on. correct anything i've got wrong.

now whether the sourcecode as written will allow this to continue i don't know but its been almost 3 yrs and guys like Dan Kaminsky who initially thought there were 9 holes to exploit have since apparently been convinced otherwise. realize i'm not talking about scalability here. i'm talking about as it is today and with current usage; everything seems to be progressing w/o a hitch. i know you think its cumbersome given how its meshed various techniques together into a long complex code. for me, since it hasn't failed despite what we know to be multiple attempts at bringing it down is very encouraging from an investment/speculative standpoint. and i know many brilliant people are working to make it more elegant. and some think its a Mona Lisa as it is. since this is a first for something distributed so openly on the internet, somewhere somehow it will find a purpose.

the distributed nature of Bitcoin is important as well since it is so disruptive to the current banking system. i truly do believe the only way to shut it down is to shut down the internet. that didn't work so well in Egypt did it now. the ones who screamed the loudest were the banks who needed their tx's to go thru. wasn't the internet designed to withstand a nuclear attack as well and is it not just in the US of A?

Quote

I can say that I'm really interested in the perception of the Bitcoin project, both amongst those who can read the source code and those who wont understand it. For the project with about 25 thousand lines of hard-to-read code the amount of misunderstanding among the software professionals is within my expected boundaries.

For non-practitioners in software I just don't have a frame of reference. I'm just trying to comprehend what they are imagining or believing as the features of Bitcoin. And if they believe then whom and in what claims. I find this very interesting and this is what is continuing to draw me to this forum.

Clearly you are an experienced investor, since you've quickly seen through the facade of Bitcoinica and Zhoutong's posts. Also clearly, you must rely on somebody's else opinions about the actual underlying technology.

i see what you're getting at in terms of trying to understand the investors perspective so let me try and help you and maybe you can help me from the technical end.

first, you're right, i can't read code and wouldn't be able to see holes in it if they were present. my confidence comes from directly talking with Gavin and theymos both whom are experienced coders as well as several of the other early adopters. how they rate compared to you i don't know. also hanging out on these forums helps quite a bit despite all the bs. but as an investor piecing together the puzzle there is some credibility that comes from Gavin being a Princeton graduate and i understand his personal position and circumstances as to why he donates his time towards this project. he really does believe in it. these guys also seem to understand the basics of the financial crisis and economics which matches my own and helps assure me they are moving the technical aspects of Bitcoin in the right direction. also i hang out in the Dev and Tech section from time to time to see what all you guys are talking about. it seems to me, rightly or wrongly, that so many technical people discussing the ins and outs of a myriad of different technical aspects of Bitcoin can't all be wrong. the amount of time and effort devoted to this project is astounding you must agree.

even though these are technical discussions clearly an understanding by these guys of the economic motivations of investors and of the financial system as we know it usually are interweaved into why this or that should be included in the code. i continuously weight these in my analysis and usually finding myself agreeing with them.