[E-BOOK] Mastering Bitcoin - Programming the Open Blockchain - 2E (2017) [EPUB, 8.7 MB]

[-] Mortos3 | 6 points | Dec 19 2017 09:23:00

Cryptocurrencies are the future, any book about them would be useful. Bitcoin has indeed become more of a store of value rather than true currency. You don't have to buy a whole one though, you can just get a fraction if desired.

[-] ironliar | 6 points | Dec 19 2017 16:22:54

Cryptocurrencies aren't the future of anything.

The whole crypto market is a study in why regulation is necessary. It's awash with manipulation, fraud and even outright theft.

Proof-of-work systems are grossly inefficient. Bitcoin mining currently consumes more power than a small country (it recently overtook Denmark!), and that usage is climbing. In addition, most mining occurs in China with electricity generated from burning coal. Bitcoin's carbon footprint is appalling.

The wealth inequality of Bitcoin is worse than the current system, with a tiny minority holding a significant fraction of coins. An inordinate amount of influence is also wielded by a handful of groups: exchanges, mining equipment manufacturers, developers and some early adopters. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, amirite?

Also, LMAO at Bitcoin being a 'store of value'. It's absurdly volatile.

I upvoted OP for sharing, knowledge is power and all that. But seriously, anyone reading this who's thinking about getting into Bitcoin: DON'T. Avoid that shit like the plague.

Edit: a word

[-] j1202 | 7 points | Dec 19 2017 17:33:04

You are going to Egypt

[-] Leg0z | 1 points | Dec 19 2017 19:43:48

Exactly. Bitcoin is slow to transfer and completely impractical as a day-to-day currency. At no time will people be able to buy groceries with it in the future. BUT there are several other cryptocurrencys that can fill that roll that have none of the drawbacks of bitcoin. Ripple for example is taking shape as the way in which funds are transferred internationally, in seconds, with zero fees, and 70+ major banks are testing it for adoption.

[-] ironliar | 1 points | Dec 20 2017 01:41:38

You're right. I shouldn't have conflated Bitcoin and crypto as a whole. But some of my criticisms are still applicable. Market manipulation, for example, is a crypto-wide issue. Also, anything using a PoW algorithm is going to suffer from inefficiency problems.

As for other consensus mechanisms, the most seriously considered alternative is proof-of-stake, which avoids the waste associated with PoW (although I've seen arguments to the contrary). It's fatally flawed though, as it can't achieve a trustless consensus, which is a key property of Bitcoin and PoW based crypto in general. Not to mention that it promotes hoarding, which makes anything built on it even less useful as a currency and exacerbates the inequality problem.

Perhaps a more exotic consensus mechanism will prove workable. I've yet to see anything convincing.

Putting aside the myriad technical issues, it's clear that for crypto to succeed to the degree that people are predicting, it will have to satisfy a sizeable need. A need which I'm not convinced exists, at least not on a scale to warrant such bullishness.

Ultimately, I think the lasting impact of crypto will be minimal. It will probably retain its niche in the underground economy, and I daresay blockchains will find some limited use outside of currency applications. But its primary legacy will be a cautionary one.

[-] Mortos3 | 2 points | Dec 20 2017 03:29:44

Have you read the material on PoS from the Ethereum devs? Many of the potential issues are presented and discussed.

[-] ironliar | 1 points | Dec 20 2017 14:19:43

From the linked FAQ:

We can solve (1) by making it the user's responsibility to authenticate the latest state out of band. They can do this by asking their friends, block explorers, businesses that they interact with, etc. for a recent block hash in the chain that they see as the canonical one.

This isn't a distributed consensus! It completely changes the trust model by adding a social component.

Their consensus algorithm is still subjective (regardless of how 'weak' they claim it to be). It's also a lot more complex than traditional PoW and naive PoS mechanisms.

[-] Mortos3 | 1 points | Dec 20 2017 22:48:47

There are similar concerns in PoW though - How do you know that you have the right Genesis block? Or in the case of a hard fork, that you're running the 'right' fork? You can no longer rely on the chain-with-most-work rule and must confirm it from the outside.

Also, quoting from a comment I found by nick johnson:

weak subjectivity isn't required to reach consensus - it's required to determine which chain is the true one after a long time disconnected from the network. If you remain connected, there's no weak subjectivity issue.

[creating an alternate history] requires having control of signing keys comprising >50% of validators at some time in the past.

[-] Mortos3 | 1 points | Dec 20 2017 03:23:03

Proof-of-work systems are grossly inefficient.

I'm more of a fan of Ethereum, which is switching to Proof-of-Stake in the near future.

[-] ncaa76 | 1 points | Dec 19 2017 09:42:32

Thank you, this makes alot of sense.

[-] j1202 | 2 points | Dec 19 2017 17:33:38

I am looking at for a map

[-] meandertothehorizon | 1 points | Mar 23 2018 02:13:26

Heh.

[-] mc2memes | 0 points | Dec 19 2017 12:30:23

I was one of the few people to hear about Bitcoin pretty early on - my friends and I were saying this once it hit $300. Mining may not be profitable, but putting some money in and playing the system right sure can be