Ninjastic
Search content
Sort by
Showing 8 of 8 results by AnotherJohnDoe
Post
Topic
Board Speculation
Adaption vs technology
by
AnotherJohnDoe
on 14/04/2018, 10:48:21 UTC
There are newer cryptocurrencies than BTC with better technology. However we often insist that BTC is "king" because of its "first mover advantage" and its greater adaption. But then USD has far far greater adaption than BTC.

Shouldn't we value more technology than adaption? Isn't it natural that in the end other cryptocurrencies with better technology will prevail?
Post
Topic
Board Bitcoin Discussion
One-CPU-one-vote but full nodes don't vote anymore
by
AnotherJohnDoe
on 03/10/2017, 18:53:27 UTC
The original intention of Satoshi was "one-cpu-one-vote". Everybody would run the same full node and would simultaneously mine and have a chance for a mining fee.

But gradually mining got "out of control" and separated from full nodes. Now full nodes are still essential to the network but they don't get compensated.

If the above view is correct, can this situation evolve into a threat? (Fewer and fewer full nodes).

Are there other cryptos providing an implementation closer to "one-cpu-one-vote" ?
Post
Topic
Board Bitcoin Discussion
Re: Lack of protection: obstacle to use of crypto as money?
by
AnotherJohnDoe
on 02/10/2017, 18:42:15 UTC
Quote from: nidacoinlove on October 02, 2017, 06:20:57 PM
Quote from: LeGaulois on October 02, 2017, 04:06:28 PM
Not agree with you on this point. Otherwise, let me ask you. When buying something and you pay with coins/banknotes, how are you protected? You can't go to the police and the bank and say my banknote has the number #xxxxx printed on it. As of today, it hasn't been a problem to spread this method of payment. Same thing when gold was used to trade

Come on you duffer OP is not asking for the number of banknotes paid and by the way how did it come to your mind to pay banknotes via visa card? To answer any of the topic it is must to understand it before passing comments.
Lemme explain it to the OP that in bitcoin we have a secure way to buy any services or goods. Escrow services are used for the purpose of security. Where escrow is selected by the mutual consent of both the parties I.e. buyers and seller. The buyer handover the amount to escrow and after the confirmation of buyer for the receiving of goods or services the escrow transfer the amount to seller's wallet. Escrow charge fee for his services just like a guarantor bank.

OK, escrow may be an answer to the problem in many cases. I'll try to investigate this path more. Thank you!
Post
Topic
Board Bitcoin Discussion
Re: Lack of protection: obstacle to use of crypto as money?
by
AnotherJohnDoe
on 02/10/2017, 18:24:29 UTC
Quote from: Emoclaw on October 02, 2017, 05:59:20 PM

...
It's easy for law enforcement agencies to link Bitcoin addresses to an individual, let alone if said individual is running a business online.
Assuming a platform like Ebay, where they would most likely use BitPay for Bitcoin payments, a seller could be easily identified since he'd be using both of those platforms.
...


Law enforcement agencies try to identify the owner of an address in case of serious illegal activities. To be "obliged" to examine the small scam where I was a victim, a) crypto must be legal form of payment, and  b) they must be able to easily identify the owner of each address (complete loss of anonymity).

And what about completely anonymous cryptos?
Post
Topic
Board Bitcoin Discussion
Re: Lack of protection: obstacle to use of crypto as money?
by
AnotherJohnDoe
on 02/10/2017, 17:49:05 UTC
Quote from: stompix on October 02, 2017, 05:26:02 PM
Quote from: LeGaulois on October 02, 2017, 04:06:28 PM
Not agree with you on this point. Otherwise, let me ask you. When buying something and you pay with coins/banknotes, how are you protected? You can't go to the police and the bank and say my banknote has the number #xxxxx printed on it. As of today, it hasn't been a problem to spread this method of payment. Same thing when gold was used to trade

When you pay in cash you usually get a receipt.
Usually aka 100% times in a civilized country and not in a 3rd world slump.
That is your proof you have paid and this is how things work fine for ages in Europe.

If the cashier is handing you the wrong change and denies taking your money you can of course call the police and have the cash in the machine searched and counted. We have a law in place here that while working as a cashier you are not supposed to have more than the equivalent of 5 euros on you.

And do you see this "civilized" arrangement easily replicated with anonymous and "illegal" cryptos ?
Post
Topic
Board Bitcoin Discussion
Re: Lack of protection: obstacle to use of crypto as money?
by
AnotherJohnDoe
on 02/10/2017, 17:39:54 UTC
Quote from: krishnapramod on October 02, 2017, 05:13:09 PM
Quote from: AnotherJohnDoe on October 02, 2017, 04:00:32 PM
Most commercial transactions in modern societies are based on an explicit or implicit protection of both parties (seller - consumer). The protection may be provided by an intermediary party or ultimately by the law.

When I buy a product or service online with my VISA, I can reverse the transaction if the seller does not deliver according to terms.
For larger purchases (car, home) the transfer of funds is usually through a bank (which can authorise a cheque or provide proof of deposit of the amount).
In case of dispute I can ultimately seek protection from law.

I know that these systems of protection sometimes fail, but this is not the point. Even the implicit sense of protection often facilitates everyday transactions.

On the other hand, transactions with cryptos are based on trust, at least as long as cryptos are not recognised as legal form of payment and remain anonymous.

Do you agree that this lack of protection is an obstacle to the wide-spread use of cryptos as money?
What solutions do you see?
Quote
Bitcoin's base layer transactions on the blockchain are irreversible and final. It's no exaggeration to say that the entirety of bitcoin's system of blockchain, mining, proof of work, difficulty etc, exist to produce this history of transactions that is computationally impractical to modify.

In the literature on electronic cash, this property was often refer to as "solving the double-spending problem".

Bitcoin transactions aren't reversible. Based on your perspective, this might be Bitcoin's flaw or its strength.

Quote
Possession of bitcoin is not enforced by business rules and policy, but cryptography and game theory.

Base layer transactions on Blockchain are irreversible, but if I am not technically wrong then second layer solutions can be added to make transactions reversible, but I don't think it is necessary. Bitcoin isn't designed to be reversible.

As far as P2P transactions are concerned one can use an escrow or multisig.

IMO the irreversible aspect of Bitcoin isn't a hindrance to it being used as a medium of exchange.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Irreversible_Transactions

It's not the technical aspects of irreversability that I'm concerned of. Perhaps it's more the anonymity combined with lack of legal endorcement.

Let's imagine a world where a) bitcoin is legal form of payment and b) Every user can be associated with the addresses he/she owns. Then in a transaction I can ask for legal protection and the law could force the cheating party to send back a payment.

But this is obviously not the vision of bitcoin.
Post
Topic
Board Bitcoin Discussion
Re: Lack of protection: obstacle to use of crypto as money?
by
AnotherJohnDoe
on 02/10/2017, 16:19:25 UTC
Quote from: LeGaulois on October 02, 2017, 04:06:28 PM
Not agree with you on this point. Otherwise, let me ask you. When buying something and you pay with coins/banknotes, how are you protected? You can't go to the police and the bank and say my banknote has the number #xxxxx printed on it. As of today, it hasn't been a problem to spread this method of payment. Same thing when gold was used to trade


Yes, cryptos resemble cash. But:

- You don't use cash (or gold) for large "unattended" transactions. Do you buy with cash a 1000 usd / eur product in a dark alley when nobody else is present? In a transaction with other witnesses where the seller claims "You haven't paid for this" I can ultimately seek protection by law. I cannot say this is my banknote but I can try to prove that I have paid.

- You cannot use cash or gold for not face-to-face transactions.

Post
Topic
Board Bitcoin Discussion
Lack of protection: obstacle to use of crypto as money?
by
AnotherJohnDoe
on 02/10/2017, 16:00:32 UTC
Most commercial transactions in modern societies are based on an explicit or implicit protection of both parties (seller - consumer). The protection may be provided by an intermediary party or ultimately by the law.

When I buy a product or service online with my VISA, I can reverse the transaction if the seller does not deliver according to terms.
For larger purchases (car, home) the transfer of funds is usually through a bank (which can authorise a cheque or provide proof of deposit of the amount).
In case of dispute I can ultimately seek protection from law.

I know that these systems of protection sometimes fail, but this is not the point. Even the implicit sense of protection often facilitates everyday transactions.

On the other hand, transactions with cryptos are based on trust, at least as long as cryptos are not recognised as legal form of payment and remain anonymous.

Do you agree that this lack of protection is an obstacle to the wide-spread use of cryptos as money?
What solutions do you see?