Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

the bitcoin protocol as a p2p open ledger is the interesting idea, and as such it is a valid proposition as a transaction system. Contract signing for example.

The derived value store has not much going for it IMHO. It suffers from a reverse network effect; as the block chain becomes heavier, it becomes clumsier, and a clone -- alt is more and more attractive, and a few simple clicks away. (no lock was a down side argument that was around when google became a home run(vs MS) but has yet to materialize; lately they might be setting themselves up for it to happen tho)

As soon as the expansion of demand(is all this demand really real?) comes to an end, bitcoins are susceptible to become tulip bulbs. You cannot pay any taxes in bitcoins, and this is how prices on everything are indexed in our fiat world.



I'd argue that for blockchain to function as secure ledger, miners must be motivated to do so. So you have to make a currency out of it anyway.


yes that's perfectly right. But the value of the currency should then become indexed to the cost of securing the ledger over the long run. At this point I would think that's it not the case for btc. IMHO developing ASICs for SHA256 hashing is not a grand development for humanity; it's an expected capitalist response to the fact the the p2p system is valuable. It's a capitalistic proof of the bitcoin protocol.

But as a ledger gets bigger it gets more expensive to secure and harder to use; at one point the best economic alternative is to start a new one, based on the same principle, but not the same POW. And then start a new one. So the value resides in the p2p protocol not the currency itself which is a temporary corollary store that exists while the network is growing.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: