Skip to content

Comment on Bitcoin is "Worse is Better"parent

Comments

As long as we're talking about Bitcoin, mind clarifying your criticisms?

it almost totally fails to achieve its security objectives, that it exploits a misperception about anonymity to handwave away the fact that for most users it is not anonymous

Are these the same -- both referring to the mere pseudonymity of addresses?

it is reliant on centralized infrastructure

How so? My understanding is that anyone can generate a new block, it's just (linearly) more likely to be you the more CPU you have.

and (most importantly) that it is meaningless as a currency

This seems like the weakest criticism. There are many conventions that work simply because they are conventions. In other words, they are self-supporting. Bitcoin has bootstrapped to the point where such a convention exists, and people are productively using it as a currency. This may not be the level of rigor you're used to in your work, but it seems plausible that a convention like Bitcoin could last for a significant period of time before collapsing.

The dollar isn't a currency simply by convention. Neither is gold. It only seems that way in the frictionless vacuum of message board arguments.

Agreed, and I didn't say they were.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.