[Cryptography] Fun and games with international transaction settlement (was Re: IBM looking at adopting bitcoin technology for major currencies)

Ben Laurie ben at links.org
Wed Apr 15 22:19:52 EDT 2015

On 15 April 2015 at 23:12, Ryan Carboni <ryacko at gmail.com> wrote:

> It really doesn't. 51% (more properly, 34%) attacks show that it doesn't.
>> If it were done properly, i.e. with verifiable append only logs run by a
>> known set of entities, then it would. It would also be many orders of
>> magnitude cheaper. Stupidly cheap, in fact, instead of eye-wateringly
>> expensive.
>> I do wish people would stop perpetuating this canard.
> 2 things: How will the NSA be able to acquire bitcoins using it's massive
> ASIC black budget?
> 2. Also, how will people be able to acquire bitcoins in the first place?
> Proof of stake is a great idea, problem is, how do you distribute it?
> Initially it's not going to be worth anything, and hoarders will
> destabilize the currency.
> Economics is more important than cryptography in designing a currency,
> although both are required for viability.

You are conflating two mechanisms:

1. The ledger. It is this that I say can be done far more cheaply and

2. Allocation of money. I make no claims about this. Though it seems like
an obvious observation that in Bitcoin the more money you spend, the more
bitcoins you get allocated. Seems to me this could be done more efficiently
than wasting all that energy. Maybe everyone should pay me instead of the
electricity companies? I promise I'll spend it wisely. And I won't waste
quite so much energy in the process.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20150416/3f37b75c/attachment.html>

More information about the cryptography mailing list