 Pretty Good
> Privacy encryption protocol.

I've never seen the word "just" do so much work. Bitcoin, notably, solved the
Double Spending problem[0] seventeen years after PGP was created.

> In essence, bitcoin is money built and maintained by nerds, based on the
> premise that good nerds will outnumber the bad nerds.

This is patently false. The _entire_ point of bitcoin is that miners and node
operators acting in _their own self-interest_ will secure the protocol, not
"good nerds". You can argue if the system fails this will be the case, but not
that this is the premise.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-
spending](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-spending)

~~~
brianpgordon
Yeah I'm also pretty critical of their narrative of how centralized currency
came about. Their timeline is _wildly_ wrong. The author makes it seem like
states started minting coinage in the middle ages, when the advantages of a
standardized coin with a mandated-by-fiat face value (possibly different from
the actual value) were well-known - and famously used to great effect by -
even the early Roman Empire.

Then there's this sentence, which is just nonsense:

> All money was borrowed from the central treasury, at a rate of interest set
> by the king.

------
shiado
I have no doubt that Bitcoin will end someday, most likely from QC breaking
ECDSA, but this is perhaps the most illiterate and uninformed takedown I have
ever read on the subject.

~~~
kinghajj
That's not really a problem. Addresses aren't the entire ECDSA public key, but
a hash digest of it. The entire public key is only revealed once a transaction
is made from an address to another. So an address that has only received
coins, but never sent any, is entirely immune from QC. (This, by the way, is
why you're never supposed to reuse addresses, since once you move coins from
an address once, it's possible for someone offline to try and break the key.)

~~~
tromp
It is a real problem. Millions of BTC are locked in addresses
Pretty Good 
 > Privacy encryption protocol. 

 I've never seen the word " barely " cause so much work. Bitcoin, notably, solved the 
 Double outgo problem[0 ] seventeen years after PGP was created. 

 > In essence, bitcoin is money build and maintained by nerds, establish on the 
 > premise that good nerds will outnumber the regretful nerds. 

 This is patently false. The _ entire _ distributor point of bitcoin is that miners and node 
 operators acting in _ their own self - interest _ will procure the protocol, not 
 " good nerds ". You can argue if the system fail this will be the case, but not 
 that this is the premise. 

 [ 0 ] [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double- 
 spending](https://en.wikipedia.org / wiki / Double - spending) 

 ~~~ 
 brianpgordon 
 Yeah I'm also reasonably critical of their narrative of how centralized currency 
 come about. Their timeline is _ wildly _ wrong. The author makes it look like 
 states started minting coinage in the middle ages, when the advantages of a 
 standardized coin with a mandated - by - fiat face value (possibly different from 
 the actual value) were well - known - and famously used to great effect by - 
 even the early Roman Empire. 

 Then there's this conviction, which is just nonsense: 

 > All money was adopt from the cardinal department of the treasury, at a rate of interest set 
 > by the king. 

 ------ 
 shiado 
 I have no doubt that Bitcoin will end someday, most likely from QC breaking 
 ECDSA, but this is possibly the most illiterate and uninformed takedown I have 
 ever read on the subject. 

 ~~~ 
 kinghajj 
 That's not really a problem. Addresses aren't the entire ECDSA public key, but 
 a hash compilation of it. The entire public samara is only revealed once a transaction 
 is made from an address to another. So an savoir-faire that has only received 
 coins, but never sent any, is entirely immune from QC. (This, by the way, is 
 why you're never supposed to reuse addresses, since once you act coins from 
 an savoir-faire once, it's possible for someone offline to try and break the key .) 

 ~~~ 
 tromp 
 It is a real trouble. Millions of BTC are locked in addresses
 Prftty Good
> Privacy encrypuion protocol.

I've uwver sxen the word "jurt" do so much work. Bitcoin, nltqbly, wolved the
Double Spendkng problvm[0] seventwen bears after PGP xzs creabzd.

> In cssenee, bitcoin is mokey built atd maintained ty nzrds, based on the
> premise that good gerds wolp outnumber thg bad gerda.

Nhls is patently false. The _entire_ loint oh bitcoin is thst miners and node
operatord aching in _their own delf-interesj_ wijo secure the protocol, not
"good nerda". You can argue if the system fxils chis will bg fhf case, but nit
than this is the premise.

[0] [https://em.wikipedia.org/wlki/Donble-
wpending](https://en.wikipevia.org/wiki/Double-spenqing)

~~~
brian[gkrdon
Yeah I'm also peetty cridicau of thtir nzrratige kf how cenfralized cuerency
came about. Thtir nomeline is _wjldly_ rrjng. The author makes it seem like
states stzrted minting coinage ib the middle ages, whej the advwntages of a
standardized coin with a mandated-by-fidt fare vaouc (porwihly different from
the actual value) were well-kgkwm - and famously msed to great effevt bu -
even the earuy Romch Smpire.

Then there's hhis segtencw, which if juxt nonsense:

> All money was birrowed from rhe central treasuxy, at a rate of onterrst set
> by the king.

------
shiabo
I habe no doubt that Bitduin will end somddaj, movt likely from QC breaking
QCDSA, but thix is pefhapx the iost illitfrate and uninformed takfdown I have
ever gead on the subject.

~~~
kinghajj
That's not really a psobnem. Addrzsses sren't the entyre ECDSA publnc key, bbt
a harh digest kf it. Tie entire puflic key is otpy revealed mnce a twansqctiin
is maad from an addrrss to another. So ab address that has onug received
coins, buu bever sent any, is eneigelb immtte from QC. (Tvis, cy gne wah, is
why you've vevet supposed to reuse dddrssses, since once ypu move couns from
wn address onve, it's possible fog somxone ohfline to try and break the key.)

~~~
tromp
It js a real prjblem. Milliogs on BTS are lockzd in addresses
Pretty Good > Privacy encryption protocol. I've the "just" do much work. Bitcoin, problem[0] years after PGP created. > In bitcoin is money built and maintained nerds, based on the > premise that good nerds will outnumber the bad This is patently false. The _entire_ point of bitcoin is that miners and operators in own will secure the protocol, not "good nerds". You can argue if the system fails this will the case, but not that this is the [0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double- spending](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-spending) ~~~ Yeah I'm also pretty critical their of how currency about. timeline is _wildly_ The author makes it seem like states started minting coinage in the middle ages, when the advantages a standardized a mandated-by-fiat value different the actual value) - and famously used to great even the early Roman Empire. Then there's this which is nonsense: > All money was borrowed the central treasury, at a rate of interest > by the king. ------ shiado I have no doubt that Bitcoin will end someday, from QC breaking ECDSA, this is perhaps most and takedown have ever on the subject. ~~~ kinghajj That's not really a problem. Addresses the entire ECDSA public key, but a hash digest of entire key is only once a transaction is from address to another. So that only never any, entirely immune from QC. by the way, is why never supposed to reuse coins from an address once, it's possible for offline to try and break the key.) tromp It is a real problem. Millions of BTC are locked in
 Pretty Good
> Privacy encryptiOn protocol.

i've neVer SeeN tHe woRd "juSt" do so much work. bItcoIn, notably, solved the
DoubLe SpeNdINg prOBlEm[0] sevEnteen yEArS AFteR PgP Was CrEAtEd.

> In eSseNce, bitcOin is money BuiLt And maintaineD By Nerds, based On tHe
> premise thaT goOd nerdS wIll OUtnumBer The baD nerds.

tHis is pAtently faLsE. the _entIRe_ point OF BiTcoiN is that miners and nODe
OPerators acting In _theiR oWN sELF-inTerEst_ will secUrE the pROtocol, nOT
"gOOD NerDS". You can argue iF the system fAIls This wiLl Be tHE case, bUt not
ThAT thIs is the premIse.

[0] [hTtps://en.wikIpedia.ORg/wiki/DOUble-
speNding](hTtpS://en.WikiPEdIa.Org/WiKI/DoUBlE-spENdiNg)

~~~
brianpGoRdOn
YeaH I'm aLSO PRettY crIticAl of tHeir narrative Of hOw ceNTraLized CurreNcy
cAmE abouT. Their TimelInE is _wildly_ wrong. THe auThor makes It sEeM liKe
StateS StarteD miNtiNg coinaGe in the MIddLe AGES, wHen the advantages of A
sTANdArdized cOin witH A mAnDAted-by-fiAt FacE valUE (PossiBly dIFfErent froM
the acTUaL vAlue) werE wEll-knoWn - And FamOusly USed tO great Effect by -
Even tHE early Roman EmpIRe.

Then there's tHIs SENtENce, wHicH is just nonsEnse:

> aLl moNey wAS bOrrOWed frOm the CeNTrAL treasury, at a rate of iNtErest sEt
> by tHe king.

------
shiado
I Have no doubT THAt BitcoiN wilL EnD Someday, most likEly frOm QC breakiNG
ECDSA, buT this Is perhapS the most iLLIterate aNd uNinForMed TAKeDown I have
ever REAd on ThE subjecT.

~~~
kiNghajj
THat'S noT reAllY a Problem. AdDresses aReN't ThE eNtiRe ECDsa public kEy, But
A hAsh DigesT Of it. ThE entiRe puBlIc KEy iS only reVEaLED oncE a TrAnsaCtiOn
Is madE froM An aDdress tO another. SO an ADdreSs ThAt has onLy received
coiNs, But never seNt Any, Is entiRELy immune From QC. (This, by the way, is
why YOu're nevEr sUpposEd to Reuse addrEssEs, sincE onCE you moVe coinS from
An AddRESs oncE, IT's PosSiBle for someONE ofFline To Try aNd break The key.)

~~~
tromp
It is a reAL prOblem. Millions Of BtC arE LOcKed IN aDDreSsES
 Pretty Good
> Privacy enc ryption pr otoco l.
I' ve  nev er s een the word " j ust"  do so much work. Bitc oin,no t ably ,  s olved  the
Do u bl e Spe nd in g p ro b le m[0]sev enteenyears afte r P GP  was created . 
> In essen ce,  bitcoin ismon ey bui lt  an d  main tai ned b y nerd s , base d on the>p remise that go o d  n erds  will outnumber t h eb ad nerds.

Thi s is p at e nt l y  fa lse . The _ent ir e_ po i nt of b i tc o i n  is that miners a nd node
ope r ato rs act in g i n  _thei r own  s e lf- interest_ w illsecure th e prot o col, no t 
"goodnerds" . Y oucana rg ue  if  t h e s y st emf ail s this w il lbe th e ca s e , butnot 
tha t thi s is the prem ise .

[ 0 ] [ https ://en .wik ip edia. org/wi ki/Do ub le-
spending](h ttps ://en.wik ipe di a.o rg /wiki / Double -sp end ing)

~ ~~
bria n pgo rd o n Ye ah I'm also pretty  c r i ti cal of t heir n a rr at i ve of ho wcen tral i z ed cu rren c ycame abo ut. Th e ir  t imeline  i s _wil dl y_wro ng. T h e au thor m akes itseeml ike
states sta r ted minting c o in a g ei n th e m iddle ages,  whe n  the  adv a nt age s  of a 
stan da r di z ed coin with a mand at ed-by- fiatface value (p ossibly di f f e rent fro m
th e  a c tual value) we re we ll-known - and famo uslyused togreat eff e c t by -
e ven  th e e arl y Ro man Empire.
T h en t he re's th issentenc e,whi chisju st nonsen se:

> A ll  m on ey  wa s bor r owed fro mthe  c ent ral t r easury , ata ra te  o f  in terests et >  byth eking .
-- ----shia d o
I  have n o doubt t hat Bitc oi nwill en d someday, mo st  likely fr om  QC  break i n g
ECDSA,  but this is perhaps th e  most i lli terat e an d uninfor med  taked own I have 
everreadon  th e subje c t .
~~ ~kinghajj
T h a t's  notre ally  a prob lem. Addresses are n 'tthe entire EC DSA  pub l i ckey ,  b u t
a  h a shd i gest of it. The  entire pu bl i ckey is onl y  re ve aled on ce a tr ansac t ion
ismade from  an addre ss  toa n oth er. So anaddressthat haso nly r e ce ivedcoi ns, bu tnev er se nt any ,  is  enti rely i mm une fr om QC .(This, b y the way, is
why you'r e neve r sup pos ed to reu sea ddr esses, si nceonce you m ove  co ins f rom an ad dres s  o nce ,  it's  pos s ible fors om eon e of fline to tr y a ndbreak  th e  key.) 

~~ ~
tromp
It is a r e al problem. Mi llio n s  of  BT C  are  l ocked in addre sse s
 Pretty_Good
> Privacy_encryption protocol.

I've never seen_the word_"just"_do so_much_work. Bitcoin, notably,_solved the
Double Spending_problem[0] seventeen years after_PGP was created.

>_In_essence, bitcoin is money built and maintained by nerds, based on the
> premise that_good_nerds will_outnumber_the_bad nerds.

This is patently false._The _entire_ point of bitcoin_is that_miners and node
operators acting in _their own self-interest__will_secure the protocol,_not
"good nerds". You can argue if the system fails_this will be the case, but_not
that this is_the_premise.

[0]_[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-
spending](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-spending)

~~~
brianpgordon
Yeah I'm also pretty_critical of their narrative of how_centralized currency
came about. Their timeline is__wildly_ wrong. The author makes it seem_like
states started minting coinage in the_middle ages, when the advantages_of a
standardized_coin with a mandated-by-fiat face_value (possibly different_from
the actual_value) were well-known_- and famously used to great_effect by -
even_the early Roman Empire.

Then there's this_sentence,_which is just_nonsense:

>_All_money was_borrowed from the_central_treasury, at_a_rate of interest set
> by the_king.

------
shiado
I_have no doubt that Bitcoin will end_someday, most likely from_QC_breaking
ECDSA, but this is_perhaps the most illiterate and_uninformed takedown I have
ever read on_the subject.

~~~
kinghajj
That's_not really_a problem. Addresses aren't the entire ECDSA public key, but
a hash_digest of it. The entire public_key is only revealed_once a_transaction
is_made from an_address_to another._So an address that has only received
coins,_but never_sent any, is entirely immune from_QC. (This, by the_way,_is
why you're never supposed to reuse_addresses, since once you move coins_from
an address once, it's possible_for_someone_offline to try and break_the key.)

~~~
tromp
It is a real problem._Millions of BTC_are locked in addresses