The Bitcoin community is rapidly coalescing around an effort to increase the maximum allowed blocksize to 2MB as soon as possible. This increase is being implemented in a new client, Bitcoin Classic [0], which is a fork of Bitcoin Core that changes only the single line of code that sets the blocksize limit.
Bitcoin Classic was created by Jonathan Toomim, an American miner and developer who went to China to talk directly with Chinese miners and to test the effect of bigger blocks on mining operations behind the Great Firewall. Gavin Andresen, Bitcoin Core's former lead developer, and Jeff Garzik, another prominent Core developer, as well as many others, are collaborating with Toomim on further changes that Bitcoin Classic may implement later.
The big difference between Bitcoin Classic and Mike Hearn's failed Bitcoin XT is the concerted effort by the people behind Classic to garner the explicit support of miners (and other important members of the Bitcoin ecosystem) for a blocksize increase. At my last check yesterday, mining-pool operators representing 72% of global hashing power had explicitly expressed their support for Bitcoin Classic's blocksize increase, as had the operators of many popular exchanges, web wallets, and payment providers. (There is a growing compendium of prominent supporters on Bitcoin Classic's website; the complete list is on the project's Github page [1].)
That means that Bitcoin Classic is very likely to break Core's monopoly on the protocol soon. The blocksize increase, and the fork of the blockchain that it will create, is tentatively scheduled to take place after March 1. Get ready.
(By the way, the best sources for information and discussion about the Bitcoin world are now the /r/btc sub-Reddit and the discussion forums at bitcoin.com and bitco.in; the community's former hubs, /r/Bitcoin and bitcointalk.org, are both controlled by the same operator/moderator, and he has strongly censored and perverted all discussion of changes to the protocol that are not supported by Core's intransigent cabal of developers.)
The way XT seems to have failed yet Classic seems to be suceeding seems odd to me.
Is all it took really just to have a developer fly out to China and talk to a hanful of people? Seems like there's a lot more politics going on behind the scenes.
In any case, fixing the blocksize limit will be good, but I think the real value in Classic is breaking the perceived monopoly Core has and moving to a healthier political setup. Many people were absolutely unwilling to even talk about XT (or as you mention, allow others to talk about XT) because "OMG it's not Core!". That argument will be a lot less viable if everyone's moved to Classic.
So you believe that whoever was upset with the blocksize/management changes that would have been introduced in XT has been placated by this more inclusive effort? And that this actor will not attempt to sabotage the rollout of Classic as they did with XT?
It seems misleading to call something "bitcoin classic" that would implement a hard fork.
The bitcoin implementation by the "real" bitcoin foundation (ie, asciilifeform's group) at least can claim that it is an implementation of the actual bitcoin protocol:
> rapidly coalescing around an effort to increase the maximum allowed blocksize to 2MB as soon as possible
I have a small nitpick to offer. Any hard-forking change is one for a new network and a new chain, by the very definition of hard-fork. The original Bitcoin blockchain and network will still exist, no matter how many times some of its users employ a hard-fork. A hard-fork cannot "turn off" Bitcoin for everyone else. This is no different than the way that an altcoin, like Litecoin, cannot "turn off" Bitcoin merely by the deployment and launch of Litecoin.
Since their proposal is a backwards-incompatible change (hard-fork), it should be obvious that it does not increase the capacity of the current system, but rather a new system. I find myself wondering how anyone can think it is increasing the capacity of the previous network, given the definition of an (intentional!) hard-fork?
Maybe if we all just wish hard enough, IPv4 will spontaneously transform into IPv6..... Bitcoin will continue to function even in the presence of yet-another hard-fork.
Anyone is welcome to do as they please, including whatever hard-forks they might want to participate in, just as anyone is welcome to use Bitcoin or how they are welcome to abandon Bitcoin if they find that they don't like its offering. However, anyone who wants to participate in a hard-fork should do so in a safe and responsible way, such as by using a new name for the new system, using a new address identifier to avoid cross-chain contamination accidents, etc.
> and [theymos] has strongly censored and perverted all discussion of changes
That's not really true, just search "site:reddit.com/r/bitcoin" for XT or classic or whatever. His lynch mob is waving the banner of censorship but meanwhile actual content shows up on the subreddit. Theymos even acknowledges this, but for some reason refuses to use moderation to eliminate the false allegations of censorship in his subreddit.
The different versions of Bitcoin programs, I am confused, will it be possible to send Bitcoins to each address using the different programs or will each program have different Bitcoin addresses and blockchains so they are incompatible?
If I had Electum which uses the Bitcoin Core could I send Bitcoin to someone using Bitcoin Classic or Bitcoin XT?
If not then this causes a lot of problems and confusion.
"Mining already is so expensive that it takes company-sized investments to participate"
This is not true at all. I do not understand why journalists repeat this claim. It is like saying "investing in the stock market is so expensive that it takes company-sized investments to participate". It is not true. Whether you invest $1000 or $1 million your returns—as a percentage of your initial investment—will be the same regardless if this is the stock market or Bitcoin mining.
In fact I would say the opposite is true: small miners have a slightly better profitability than large-scale miners, because they are so small they do not even have to cover certain costs. A large-scale miner will have to pay for hosting or for building a data center but a small miner will host the hardware in his house at no extra cost. A large-scale miner will have to hire staff to maintain the miners but a small miner will maintain his machine himself.
Of course profitability depends a lot on electricity costs, but again you might be a small miner and live (for example) in Douglas County, Washington and pay a domestic electricity rate of 2.5 cents per kWh, and you will beat many large-scale miners who almost always pay more (see my previous comment on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10907584).
Large-scale miners may get a financial advantage by buying hardware in bulk, or manufacturing it themselves, but this is a cost saving of at most 20 or 30%, and this certainly does not make mining so expensive that small miners cannot participate.
> The problem is bitcoin is open-source software, so any change has to be approved a majority of the community, and it hasn’t been able to agree.
The author has conflated a couple of things. That is the exact opposite of how OSS works. The reason why the majority need to adopt is purely from a "one true coin" standpoint—there is nothing stopping forks or new alt coins from spinning out.
The current situation reminds me a lot of the time when Firefox replaced Internet Explorer as the most popular browser. And of the time when Chrome replaced Firefox as the most popular browser.
Currently there is only one Bitcoin implementation. And the developers a) refuse to implement what users want. And b) implement bloat that users dont't want.
So Bitcoin will "break up" in a similar way the WWW "broke up" when new browsers were introduced.
The WWW's fundamental job is not to establish consensus. It is to communicate information. Incompatible changes to the web and incompatible changes to the bitcoin protocol have very different significance.
Internet Explorer is still the most popular browser among users worldwide. Chrome is the most popular browser among certain techies. Chrome is also popular among users tricked into installing it via forced bundleware with Java updates, free antivirus engine updates, and (ironically) Flash plugin downloads for Firefox.
"Bitcoin is breaking up" = Buy like a madman. The blocksize cuts down on the transaction spam making transactions non-free, maybe a few cents each. This is not optimal and certainly needs to fix in the next few years, because it harms microtransactions.
But "breaking up" ? That's just sensationalist bullshit. That's like saying Netflix is on the edge of bankruptcy because it's raging success has temporarily killed HD streaming in Australia & Antarctica. As a community building exercise, this debacle is great for Bitcoin, it really shows no one is in control and consensus to change the rules of the game is very hard to reach.
The fact that every transaction ever is saved for ever harms microtransactions. Luckily nobody actually uses Bitcoin, especially not for microtransactions. The network can't handle more than 3 transactions a second, and luckily it doesn't have that volume. Lightning is the only thing that can actually make Bitcoin more performant than a small VPS with postgres, if it is something that people want.
Also, "Lightning-like" channels aren't unique to Bitcoin- they can be implemented on Turing-complete currencies, and even on bank servers[1]
I think these are very exciting problems. The bigger the problem the more creative the solution.
It took us two thousand years or so to go from using the weight of a bale of barley to represent the value of silver, bronze, copper to eventually actual coinage.
Bitcoin is already specified. I doubt that nodes, miners, and the bitcoin richlist will converge around any alternative spec (whether XT or Litecoin) and decide to call it "bitcoin". However, the ecology of decentralized digital assets inspired by the nakamoto consensus has already fragmented and will continue to do so at an exponential rate. As a rough estimate let's say there are already 1000 bitcoin clones that have more than a handful of nodes and miners. I would not be surprised to see that number increase to 10,000 within 2016. That some of the individuals associated with Bitcoin Core are moving onto other projects is not going to mean very much one way or another for the original bitcoin spec, though we may see the Core project change. There are other alternatives for those who want to run an implementation of the original bitcoin spec. (http://thebitcoin.foundation/) And there are an exponentially growing number of alternative networks for those who do not.
The block size issue is missing the point. The use case that matters for Bitcoin right now is converting yuan to Bitcoins, then Bitcoins to dollars. That's one way people in China get around China's exchange controls. (Note that mining in China also is used to move yuan to dollars.) Those are big transactions. They'll get through regardless of the block size.
Bitcoin as a retail currency doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Robocoin, the Bitcoin ATM company, just went bust. Lots of companies nominally accept Bitcoin, but that's just a shopping cart program talking to Coinbase or Bitpay for immediate conversion. The retail transaction volume is small. Given the volatility problem, the conversion costs, the risk of loss, and the general headaches, Bitcoin is a lose vs. paying 1% - 3% for credit card processing.
Those are two very separate things solved in different ways. Chinese exchanges and transactions per second are very orthogonal.
> Bitcoin as a retail currency doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
I buy things online with btc much more than a credit card, so I beg to differ
> Robocoin, the Bitcoin ATM company, just went bust.
They made huge and expensive ATMs that aren't necessary for what most people try to do right now, which is buy bitcoins. You can literally buy parts and make your own ATM.
> Lots of companies nominally accept Bitcoin, but that's just a shopping cart program talking to Coinbase or Bitpay for immediate conversion.
As opposed to credit card transactions? Don't blur the issue of accepting payment and a business keeping and therefore investing in bitcoins.
> the conversion costs
Less than credit card fees. 1% as opposed to 3% off your revenue stream matters quite a bit, not to mention no charge backs.
To date, they've shown pretty good success in controlling the Internet and Bitcoin is no different.
I don't think Bitcoin advocates have necessarily thought through the implications if countries were no longer able to control capital movements, hence pursue independent monetary and currency policies. As the euro experience has shown (also the history of the gold standard), it's not necessarily an improvement in monetary arrangements.
Bitcoin's appeal as an alternative value store only grows the longer the network continues to keep chugging along, and as the price grows less volatile (year to year). It is still very unique as an asset in terms of the properties it offers.
What is the downside to moving from 1MB to 2MB blocksizes, instead of moving up to 8MB or 20MB? If the reasonable maximum number of trades per minutes is 3 at the moment, does a doubling of the blocksize merely double the allowable number of trades per minute, or is it somehow a logarithmic change?
It does just double it. The problem with increasing it more is propagation speeds around the planet (this needs to be as fast as possible or another miner may get the block reward), especially if the miner is sitting in china.
That was my first thought. Why go through all this hassle to just put off the problem until the traffic merely doubles? This seems like when you see something silly in code like:
Many people have said the same thing. Right now a group of people has gone to a lot of trouble to control the main repository and forums. At the same time, many algorithms have been proposed. The most pressing problem at the moment is making sure there is room to grow, proving that a fork can happen, and getting the software out of the control of the people who have incentives that are opposing the vast majority of actual users. Once these problems are worked out more sophistication is much more likely.
If you want to read the article without being blocked by WSJ's paywall just Google the name of the article and click on the link. More often times than not you can get to a WSJ article via GoogleNews even if it is pay-restricted.
Hi Mike. I met you at San Jose conference in 2013. I remember very clearly- you were the most dashing, handsome, well spoken and charismatic person at the entire conference, a very rare find in the developer community. I was just finding my bearings in this technology at the time, I was a long way from home, and remember the confidence it instilled in me, knowing that someone like yourself was involved in this. But as I followed your contributions to the effort in the months after the conference, it was so confusing- nothing you did really seemed to help, your suggestions were widely panned by most of the best technical minds, and you seemed to devote your energy to platforms that are largely made up of newbies.
If I was a handler for an organization that wanted to insert an asset into the bitcoin community, someone like you would be the ideal candidate. Someone that young people, new to the community, naturally respect and will listen to. Strange how you've spent so much time cultivating your standing with people like that, while your reputation plummeted among the people that understood the network (and had far more skin in the game than you did, because if I remember correctly you never foresaw the spectacular growth of the bitcoin network, never thought it would work, and therefore did not really have that many coins yourself). I have a long history of having a keenly skeptical eye, I have solid critical thinking skills, and I bat away wacky theories all day long. I have NEVER, in any forum, posted any comment of any type in regards to bitcoin, this is my first one- I believe in speaking humbly, thinking deeply and acting bravely. While the evidence that your motives in the bitcoin network may not be what you say they are is only circumstantial, it has been accumulating for some time now. And the strongest allegations have come from the people who have the best reputations for clear thinking and scam calling. I mean you no ill will Mike, regardless of your intentions. But the forces at play and the implications of our technologies' reach is so spectacular that it is quite reasonable now for us to assume that smart and highly motivated people will appear who will use great cunning to harm the network. Every spidey sense I possess has been going off about you for a long time now. I can remain silent no longer.
Personal attacks (and this is a weird and creepy one, something else that Bitcoin doesn't seem to lack for) are not allowed on HN. Please don't post them here, especially when your "keenly skeptical eye" can come up with nothing worse than "dashing, handsome, well spoken and charismatic".
(This is not an opinion about anything to do with Bitcoin or who, if anyone, works for "an organization".)
Bitcoin is interesting because it attracts comments like this. Make no mistake, there is a turf-war going on; a true battle of mass popular opinion.
People do good things and they do bad things; but for some reason Bitcoin has crossed the threshold of being technically understandable so people resort to trusting people instead of ideas; so you end up with a lot of narratives (on both sides).
cui bono? Mike and his peers have everything to gain by trying to splinter BTC. Given the stability and distributed nature of Bitcoin itself the weak point is obviously the developers and that is exactly what they are going after.
The reason why journalists use that style of headline is that they know the story is probably bullshit, and don’t actually have the sources and facts to back it up, but still want to run it.
This headline is a great "grabber" for older bankers and financiers. It implies that the whole "bitcoin thing" is finally blowing over, without going out and saying it. Music to their ears.
pash|10 years ago
Bitcoin Classic was created by Jonathan Toomim, an American miner and developer who went to China to talk directly with Chinese miners and to test the effect of bigger blocks on mining operations behind the Great Firewall. Gavin Andresen, Bitcoin Core's former lead developer, and Jeff Garzik, another prominent Core developer, as well as many others, are collaborating with Toomim on further changes that Bitcoin Classic may implement later.
The big difference between Bitcoin Classic and Mike Hearn's failed Bitcoin XT is the concerted effort by the people behind Classic to garner the explicit support of miners (and other important members of the Bitcoin ecosystem) for a blocksize increase. At my last check yesterday, mining-pool operators representing 72% of global hashing power had explicitly expressed their support for Bitcoin Classic's blocksize increase, as had the operators of many popular exchanges, web wallets, and payment providers. (There is a growing compendium of prominent supporters on Bitcoin Classic's website; the complete list is on the project's Github page [1].)
That means that Bitcoin Classic is very likely to break Core's monopoly on the protocol soon. The blocksize increase, and the fork of the blockchain that it will create, is tentatively scheduled to take place after March 1. Get ready.
(By the way, the best sources for information and discussion about the Bitcoin world are now the /r/btc sub-Reddit and the discussion forums at bitcoin.com and bitco.in; the community's former hubs, /r/Bitcoin and bitcointalk.org, are both controlled by the same operator/moderator, and he has strongly censored and perverted all discussion of changes to the protocol that are not supported by Core's intransigent cabal of developers.)
0. https://www.bitcoinclassic.com
1. https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/website/issues/3
Lazare|10 years ago
Is all it took really just to have a developer fly out to China and talk to a hanful of people? Seems like there's a lot more politics going on behind the scenes.
In any case, fixing the blocksize limit will be good, but I think the real value in Classic is breaking the perceived monopoly Core has and moving to a healthier political setup. Many people were absolutely unwilling to even talk about XT (or as you mention, allow others to talk about XT) because "OMG it's not Core!". That argument will be a lot less viable if everyone's moved to Classic.
roymurdock|10 years ago
zekevermillion|10 years ago
The bitcoin implementation by the "real" bitcoin foundation (ie, asciilifeform's group) at least can claim that it is an implementation of the actual bitcoin protocol:
http://thebitcoin.foundation/
unknown|10 years ago
[deleted]
someguydave|10 years ago
As far as I'm concerned, neither side 'has a monopoly' on the protocol because they haven't documented the protocol with a proper specification.
Forking Bitcoin today to 'solve' contingent future problems seems like the height of folly.
kanzure|10 years ago
I have a small nitpick to offer. Any hard-forking change is one for a new network and a new chain, by the very definition of hard-fork. The original Bitcoin blockchain and network will still exist, no matter how many times some of its users employ a hard-fork. A hard-fork cannot "turn off" Bitcoin for everyone else. This is no different than the way that an altcoin, like Litecoin, cannot "turn off" Bitcoin merely by the deployment and launch of Litecoin.
Since their proposal is a backwards-incompatible change (hard-fork), it should be obvious that it does not increase the capacity of the current system, but rather a new system. I find myself wondering how anyone can think it is increasing the capacity of the previous network, given the definition of an (intentional!) hard-fork?
Maybe if we all just wish hard enough, IPv4 will spontaneously transform into IPv6..... Bitcoin will continue to function even in the presence of yet-another hard-fork.
Anyone is welcome to do as they please, including whatever hard-forks they might want to participate in, just as anyone is welcome to use Bitcoin or how they are welcome to abandon Bitcoin if they find that they don't like its offering. However, anyone who wants to participate in a hard-fork should do so in a safe and responsible way, such as by using a new name for the new system, using a new address identifier to avoid cross-chain contamination accidents, etc.
What is Bitcoin Core's role in all of this? https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/2016-01-07-statement
Soft-forks and hard-forks? https://petertodd.org/2016/soft-forks-are-safer-than-hard-fo...
bip99 has some more details: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0099.mediawi...
Bitcoin Core published a capacity increases roadmap: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-...
... and a FAQ about their capacity increases roadmap: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq...
> and [theymos] has strongly censored and perverted all discussion of changes
That's not really true, just search "site:reddit.com/r/bitcoin" for XT or classic or whatever. His lynch mob is waving the banner of censorship but meanwhile actual content shows up on the subreddit. Theymos even acknowledges this, but for some reason refuses to use moderation to eliminate the false allegations of censorship in his subreddit.
orionblastar|10 years ago
If I had Electum which uses the Bitcoin Core could I send Bitcoin to someone using Bitcoin Classic or Bitcoin XT?
If not then this causes a lot of problems and confusion.
mrb|10 years ago
This is not true at all. I do not understand why journalists repeat this claim. It is like saying "investing in the stock market is so expensive that it takes company-sized investments to participate". It is not true. Whether you invest $1000 or $1 million your returns—as a percentage of your initial investment—will be the same regardless if this is the stock market or Bitcoin mining.
In fact I would say the opposite is true: small miners have a slightly better profitability than large-scale miners, because they are so small they do not even have to cover certain costs. A large-scale miner will have to pay for hosting or for building a data center but a small miner will host the hardware in his house at no extra cost. A large-scale miner will have to hire staff to maintain the miners but a small miner will maintain his machine himself.
Of course profitability depends a lot on electricity costs, but again you might be a small miner and live (for example) in Douglas County, Washington and pay a domestic electricity rate of 2.5 cents per kWh, and you will beat many large-scale miners who almost always pay more (see my previous comment on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10907584).
Large-scale miners may get a financial advantage by buying hardware in bulk, or manufacturing it themselves, but this is a cost saving of at most 20 or 30%, and this certainly does not make mining so expensive that small miners cannot participate.
nharada|10 years ago
sisk|10 years ago
The author has conflated a couple of things. That is the exact opposite of how OSS works. The reason why the majority need to adopt is purely from a "one true coin" standpoint—there is nothing stopping forks or new alt coins from spinning out.
wemysh|10 years ago
Currently there is only one Bitcoin implementation. And the developers a) refuse to implement what users want. And b) implement bloat that users dont't want.
So Bitcoin will "break up" in a similar way the WWW "broke up" when new browsers were introduced.
It's a good thing.
rntz|10 years ago
datapat|10 years ago
[deleted]
JohnTHaller|10 years ago
cornholio|10 years ago
But "breaking up" ? That's just sensationalist bullshit. That's like saying Netflix is on the edge of bankruptcy because it's raging success has temporarily killed HD streaming in Australia & Antarctica. As a community building exercise, this debacle is great for Bitcoin, it really shows no one is in control and consensus to change the rules of the game is very hard to reach.
woah|10 years ago
Also, "Lightning-like" channels aren't unique to Bitcoin- they can be implemented on Turing-complete currencies, and even on bank servers[1]
1. http://altheamesh.com/blog/universal-payment-channels/
SCAQTony|10 years ago
It took us two thousand years or so to go from using the weight of a bale of barley to represent the value of silver, bronze, copper to eventually actual coinage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_money
Maybe digital currency takes 15-years or so to work out the problems much like they did with barley to coins but it is definitely the future.
unknown|10 years ago
[deleted]
zekevermillion|10 years ago
Animats|10 years ago
Bitcoin as a retail currency doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Robocoin, the Bitcoin ATM company, just went bust. Lots of companies nominally accept Bitcoin, but that's just a shopping cart program talking to Coinbase or Bitpay for immediate conversion. The retail transaction volume is small. Given the volatility problem, the conversion costs, the risk of loss, and the general headaches, Bitcoin is a lose vs. paying 1% - 3% for credit card processing.
CyberDildonics|10 years ago
> Bitcoin as a retail currency doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
I buy things online with btc much more than a credit card, so I beg to differ
> Robocoin, the Bitcoin ATM company, just went bust.
They made huge and expensive ATMs that aren't necessary for what most people try to do right now, which is buy bitcoins. You can literally buy parts and make your own ATM.
> Lots of companies nominally accept Bitcoin, but that's just a shopping cart program talking to Coinbase or Bitpay for immediate conversion.
As opposed to credit card transactions? Don't blur the issue of accepting payment and a business keeping and therefore investing in bitcoins.
> the conversion costs Less than credit card fees. 1% as opposed to 3% off your revenue stream matters quite a bit, not to mention no charge backs.
RockyMcNuts|10 years ago
They'll get through until China bans it.
China has a classic trilemma : let the currency depreciate, give up on monetary stimulus, or institute capital controls.
Pick any 2 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_trinity
To date, they've shown pretty good success in controlling the Internet and Bitcoin is no different.
I don't think Bitcoin advocates have necessarily thought through the implications if countries were no longer able to control capital movements, hence pursue independent monetary and currency policies. As the euro experience has shown (also the history of the gold standard), it's not necessarily an improvement in monetary arrangements.
dwaltrip|10 years ago
kobayashi|10 years ago
martinko|10 years ago
epmatsw|10 years ago
// const MAX_SIZE = 1;
// make it bigger to fix crash
const MAX_SIZE = 2;
CyberDildonics|10 years ago
greggarious|10 years ago
davidklemke|10 years ago
ZoeZoeBee|10 years ago
xiaoma|10 years ago
djsumdog|10 years ago
darwins_pitbull|10 years ago
If I was a handler for an organization that wanted to insert an asset into the bitcoin community, someone like you would be the ideal candidate. Someone that young people, new to the community, naturally respect and will listen to. Strange how you've spent so much time cultivating your standing with people like that, while your reputation plummeted among the people that understood the network (and had far more skin in the game than you did, because if I remember correctly you never foresaw the spectacular growth of the bitcoin network, never thought it would work, and therefore did not really have that many coins yourself). I have a long history of having a keenly skeptical eye, I have solid critical thinking skills, and I bat away wacky theories all day long. I have NEVER, in any forum, posted any comment of any type in regards to bitcoin, this is my first one- I believe in speaking humbly, thinking deeply and acting bravely. While the evidence that your motives in the bitcoin network may not be what you say they are is only circumstantial, it has been accumulating for some time now. And the strongest allegations have come from the people who have the best reputations for clear thinking and scam calling. I mean you no ill will Mike, regardless of your intentions. But the forces at play and the implications of our technologies' reach is so spectacular that it is quite reasonable now for us to assume that smart and highly motivated people will appear who will use great cunning to harm the network. Every spidey sense I possess has been going off about you for a long time now. I can remain silent no longer.
J'accuse Mike, J'accuse.
dang|10 years ago
(This is not an opinion about anything to do with Bitcoin or who, if anyone, works for "an organization".)
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10921219 and marked it off-topic.
qopp|10 years ago
People do good things and they do bad things; but for some reason Bitcoin has crossed the threshold of being technically understandable so people resort to trusting people instead of ideas; so you end up with a lot of narratives (on both sides).
solotronics|10 years ago
powertower|10 years ago
If they have to frame a headline as a question, you can usually assume the answer is "no"...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
The reason why journalists use that style of headline is that they know the story is probably bullshit, and don’t actually have the sources and facts to back it up, but still want to run it.
narrator|10 years ago
tlrobinson|10 years ago
daggerhashimoto|10 years ago
[deleted]
dang|10 years ago
Exuma|10 years ago
[deleted]
striking|10 years ago
colindean|10 years ago
ohthehugemanate|10 years ago
nols|10 years ago
increment_i|10 years ago
unknown|10 years ago
[deleted]