Ten Years of Bitcoin(bitcoin.clarkmoody.com)
bitcoin.clarkmoody.com
Ten Years of Bitcoin
https://bitcoin.clarkmoody.com/posts/ten-years-bitcoin
39 コメント
Author here.
Yep, it's definitely a message to Bitcoin insiders, but that's not a bad thing. Sorry to fail your hopes.
> grandiloquent and unsubstantiated statement
Once you've studied money from a critical angle, you start to see that unsound money is the root cause of many of the problems with society and government.
The first ten years of Bitcoin (plus history leading to it) and sound vs unsound money are both huge topics in their own right. Perhaps it would be useful for me to include a little box at the end of each article with links to books and lengthy posts about these topics.
Yep, it's definitely a message to Bitcoin insiders, but that's not a bad thing. Sorry to fail your hopes.
> grandiloquent and unsubstantiated statement
Once you've studied money from a critical angle, you start to see that unsound money is the root cause of many of the problems with society and government.
The first ten years of Bitcoin (plus history leading to it) and sound vs unsound money are both huge topics in their own right. Perhaps it would be useful for me to include a little box at the end of each article with links to books and lengthy posts about these topics.
Interestingly, I meet a lot of traditional banking folks who understand how Bitcoin works. It's very rare that I meet Bitcoin/blockchain folks who understand how traditional banking works.
Maybe the information asymmetry is part of the problem itself.
Banking system is centuries upon centuries of arbitraty constructs. It does not make sense from the ground up.
> centuries upon centuries of arbitrary constructs
That also describes the English language, and yet here we are, still using it.
In general, something that's lasted centuries is more likely to last centuries more, than something that's only lasted one decade.
That also describes the English language, and yet here we are, still using it.
In general, something that's lasted centuries is more likely to last centuries more, than something that's only lasted one decade.
Could you elaborate on this? It's not at all obvious to me that this is true.
Yes, there are lots of good Bitcoin/blockchain resources online, while the banking system is more complicated and has fewer easily digestible resources available.
while the banking system is more complicated and has fewer easily digestible resources available
I'd wager that the literature on banking and finance far outweighs resources on anything crypto. Specifically compared to papers on crypto coming from a neutral perspective.
Your statement is just plain wrong.
edit : clarification
I'd wager that the literature on banking and finance far outweighs resources on anything crypto. Specifically compared to papers on crypto coming from a neutral perspective.
Your statement is just plain wrong.
edit : clarification
Ah, but it's not presented in a droning series of youtube videos that pander to the viewer's prejudices, so it might as well not exist! /s
Crypto coins aren't really comparable to the banking system though. That's like comparing CPU architecture to the functionality of a website.
Do you think that's a good thing or a bad thing
I would assume so, though they could also be neutral.
>Yep, it's definitely a message to Bitcoin insiders, but that's not a bad thing.
Adding more noise to the echo chamber certainly isn't a good thing. I'd be much more interested to hear about the problems surrounding the technology and how you envision them being solved. Most mining is centralized, no one actually uses it as currency, the entire thing is one big speculator market, etc.
Adding more noise to the echo chamber certainly isn't a good thing. I'd be much more interested to hear about the problems surrounding the technology and how you envision them being solved. Most mining is centralized, no one actually uses it as currency, the entire thing is one big speculator market, etc.
Totally agree. Alas, you left out the quasi-religious (if not to say cultish) aspects of the crypto enthusiast movement.
I would be more interested to read about these topics, yes. In particular you really need to define what you mean by "sound" vs. "unsound" money and what makes BTC "sounder" than other currencies.
"Soundness" refers to the demand response of the money. Given increased demand for the money, can the supply be increased to absorb that demand while maintaining current purchasing power?
Fiat money can be created or destroyed at any time, so it is the most unsound money. As purchasing power rises (falls), the central bank can create (destroy) money at will to counteract the trend.
Gold exploration increases as the price rises, causing the supply to grow to meet this demand. Yet it is hard to mine gold, and its scarcity means that the increase of supply relative to the existing stock is small (roughly 2% / yr). Thus it is more sound than other metals, which are easier to mine. It is also much more sound than fiat money.
Bitcoin's monetary base increases algorithmically, so there is no supply response to increased demand. On top of that, the monetary inflation rate tends toward zero over time. The supply will reach a maximum and stop increasing. This level of soundness is greater than that of gold in the long run.
A great scholarly treatment of money is The Ethics of Money Production[1]
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6520108-the-ethics-of-mo...
Fiat money can be created or destroyed at any time, so it is the most unsound money. As purchasing power rises (falls), the central bank can create (destroy) money at will to counteract the trend.
Gold exploration increases as the price rises, causing the supply to grow to meet this demand. Yet it is hard to mine gold, and its scarcity means that the increase of supply relative to the existing stock is small (roughly 2% / yr). Thus it is more sound than other metals, which are easier to mine. It is also much more sound than fiat money.
Bitcoin's monetary base increases algorithmically, so there is no supply response to increased demand. On top of that, the monetary inflation rate tends toward zero over time. The supply will reach a maximum and stop increasing. This level of soundness is greater than that of gold in the long run.
A great scholarly treatment of money is The Ethics of Money Production[1]
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6520108-the-ethics-of-mo...
But... but... As a base money settlement system, the blockchain is the anchor for a layered protocol topology!!
jcslzr(2)
The text in the hex data seen in the article (part of the Bitcoin genesis block) was the headline of The Times to prove the block wasn't generated prior to the newspaper's date.
Bitmex (one of the largest exchanges at the moment) put an ad on the frontpage of the newspaper's issue exactly 10 years later as a tribute: https://twitter.com/BitMEXResearch/status/108059040132345036...
EDIT: It seems there is a full page ad that goes with the front page one: https://imgur.com/sVBZVfN
Bitmex (one of the largest exchanges at the moment) put an ad on the frontpage of the newspaper's issue exactly 10 years later as a tribute: https://twitter.com/BitMEXResearch/status/108059040132345036...
EDIT: It seems there is a full page ad that goes with the front page one: https://imgur.com/sVBZVfN
> to prove the block wasn't generated prior to the newspaper's date.
The newspaper could go back and change the title in their archives. Single point of failure. Tsk tsk. Should have picked a newspaper that stores their archives in an immutable blockchain.
The newspaper could go back and change the title in their archives. Single point of failure. Tsk tsk. Should have picked a newspaper that stores their archives in an immutable blockchain.
How can a newspaper prove that the block wasn't generated prior to the publish date? If I were to hash the headlines from a 1969 "ON THE MOON!" article, would it prove that my block is older that the bitcoin's genesis block?
Including it only proves that it was not generated before a certain date. It can't prove that it was generated before something also generated after the headline in question.
You have to predict exactly what the headline is going to be though "On the Moon" is a fair guess but the chances you would get "Men walk on the moon" (plus "astronauts land on plain; collect rocks, plant flag" if we're using the subheadline too) exactly correct to fake it are really low. That's only possible on a very small number of dates where there's a known huge event coming up.
You have to predict exactly what the headline is going to be though "On the Moon" is a fair guess but the chances you would get "Men walk on the moon" (plus "astronauts land on plain; collect rocks, plant flag" if we're using the subheadline too) exactly correct to fake it are really low. That's only possible on a very small number of dates where there's a known huge event coming up.
Other way round. It would prove your block wasn't generated in 1968.
> If I were to hash the headlines from a 1969 "ON THE MOON!" article, would it prove that my block is older that the bitcoin's genesis block?
That would only prove your block is NOT from before 1969. The date of the article in question is 03/Jan/2009. Which is around the time of the block itself (thus proving the block wasn't generated before 2009).
That would only prove your block is NOT from before 1969. The date of the article in question is 03/Jan/2009. Which is around the time of the block itself (thus proving the block wasn't generated before 2009).
I was expecting/hoping for analysis, but it's more like an anniversary press release touting a bunch of success without reference and ignoring anything negative.
> For ten years, the world has known a decentralized source of truth. At all prior times in human history, we relied on centralized third parties to establish trust.
This is your periodic reminder that >51% of the mining is currently controlled by 5 large mining companies based out of China[0]. If you think these companies not entirely beholden to the non-democratic, highly centralized, Chinese government (or that this is a non-issue) then I'd really like to hear that argument.
I must admit I was surprised to see that 20.1% of mining is currently "Unknown", which was not the case last I checked.
[0] https://www.blockchain.com/en/pools
> For ten years, the world has known a decentralized source of truth. At all prior times in human history, we relied on centralized third parties to establish trust.
This is your periodic reminder that >51% of the mining is currently controlled by 5 large mining companies based out of China[0]. If you think these companies not entirely beholden to the non-democratic, highly centralized, Chinese government (or that this is a non-issue) then I'd really like to hear that argument.
I must admit I was surprised to see that 20.1% of mining is currently "Unknown", which was not the case last I checked.
[0] https://www.blockchain.com/en/pools
> or that this is a non-issue
I'd argue non-issue. Attack vectors could be to attempt a double spend (not worth it) or confirming empty blocks (why?).
I'd argue non-issue. Attack vectors could be to attempt a double spend (not worth it) or confirming empty blocks (why?).
Since “Unknown” in that graph are just IP addresses that havent bragged about who they are
So its good people are chomping at the Chinese mining pools
So its good people are chomping at the Chinese mining pools
This reads like a press release — I thought the puffery would be followed by something substantive but hit the bottom of the page instead. If you aren’t a true believer before reading this you wouldn’t leave having learned anything.
There's almost no content in this post. I can't tell if it's intended as some kind of meta-commentary on bitcoin?
No doubt, this is a rare achievement of technology, community and economics.
At the same time, if everyone abandoned the project today, it's tough to imagine a measurable impact on the world outside the cryptoscene.
Personally, I feel that everyone has been too obsessed with the desire to hoard assets to actually build shit that's useful to society. The fact that this rent-seeking desire is baked into the core of most cryptocurrency schemes makes me skeptical that the space will amount to much in the near term. I suspect that when it does, it'll come about in a way that avoids rewarding the squatters. Certainly nowhere near the ratio of dumb money to strategic investment we've seen in the past couple years.
At the same time, if everyone abandoned the project today, it's tough to imagine a measurable impact on the world outside the cryptoscene.
Personally, I feel that everyone has been too obsessed with the desire to hoard assets to actually build shit that's useful to society. The fact that this rent-seeking desire is baked into the core of most cryptocurrency schemes makes me skeptical that the space will amount to much in the near term. I suspect that when it does, it'll come about in a way that avoids rewarding the squatters. Certainly nowhere near the ratio of dumb money to strategic investment we've seen in the past couple years.
... Ten years of scams and theft and damage to the environment from the abuse of electricity!
I recall mining a Bitcoin back in early 09 or so, staring at it for a few seconds and then deleting it with a chuckle. Oh well.
>These past ten years might be the earliest days of a new golden era of human flourishing, built upon censorship-resistant, sound money.
Good thing they used "might" otherwise I might have scoffed at this grandiloquent and unsubstantiated statement.