nazgulnarsil comments on General Bitcoin discussion thread (June 2011) - Less Wrong

4 Post author: SilasBarta 10 June 2011 11:21PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (102)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: SilasBarta 10 June 2011 11:27:19PM *  2 points [-]

Yes, I had an ulterior motive in starting this topic right this moment. See, I'm trying to close the inferential gap in explaining Bitcoin to the layperson, so I wrote up a blog post explaining the relevant cryptographic pre-requisites. (It's based on discussions with an economist who plans to write about Bitcoin soon.)

I would appreciate any corrections. Also, this is another case of me claiming to be better at explaining stuff than most people, so see if I live up to the standard (preferably from those that don't already understand this stuff). The economist I talked to found my explanation must more helpful than Wikipedia (and I, too, found the site's explanations not very helpful in my self-education about cryptography).

(Edited to fix typo)

Edit2: Now my long-time frenemy and economist Bob Murphy links the post with approval, though yes, he doesn't specify that it's more of a "cover of the pre-requisites" than an explanation of Bitcoin itself.

Comment author: nazgulnarsil 11 June 2011 05:19:07AM -1 points [-]

the jump in interest generally comes when you explain that there will only ever be 21 million. this seems to completely change the character of the conversation.

or did you mean explaining it to intelligent people? :p

Comment author: rhollerith_dot_com 11 June 2011 09:38:57PM *  -1 points [-]

the jump in interest generally comes when you explain that there will only ever be 21 million. this seems to completely change the character of the conversation.

Only 21 million bitcoins, but there is nothing preventing other "issuers" from copying the design of Bitcoin and creating "Cryptotokens", and "Liberty Hashes," "Stealth Gold," "African Bitcoins," etc.

Comment author: Alicorn 11 June 2011 09:47:58PM 2 points [-]

"Cryptotokens"

Cryptokens, surely?

Comment author: gwern 12 June 2011 09:49:10PM 0 points [-]

That's not a bad thing. Bitcoin is going to have to be majorly upgraded with a new blockchain when SHA-256 is broken, and money is not the only scarce things to be decentralizedly allocated - I previously commented on Namecoin.

Comment author: rhollerith_dot_com 12 June 2011 10:21:10PM *  0 points [-]

Bad thing or good thing, it makes a huge difference to the expected long-term value of a bitcoin, which is of interest to anyone thinking of holding bitcoins.

Comment author: nazgulnarsil 11 June 2011 09:47:13PM 0 points [-]

Not insurmountable but it is the chicken and egg problem. Bitcoins are the most secure by virtue of having the most hashing power.