[deepinsand]

I similarly hate Bitcoin's "technological breakthrough" status. It's an economic innovation, much in the same way Uber and AirBnB aren't "technological breakthroughs".

This has incorrectly led VCs to invest in the "Bitcoin as a protocol" concept. I wrote about it in my recent blog post: http://deepinsand.com/post/70415437372/vcs-are-wrong-about-b...

[Aqueous]

it absolutely is a technological breakthrough, moreso than uber or airbnb can ever be. it solves a fundamental technological problem - the global view synchronization problem, the Byzantine General's Problem - in a unique, novel, and original way. AirBnB and Uber do no such thing.

i really don't like being assigned a bunch of political views just because i recognize how elegant bitcoin is, and have bought an amount in bitcoin that wouldn't concern me if i lost it. this doesn't mean i'm a paranoiac or a libertarian or don't appreciate the need for central banks. i know it is risky but i also think the bitcoin network iteself has long term value and until the point that it is priced at that value i stand to make money from holding it.

this person clearly has a political axe to grind.

[deepinsand]

Note that I didn't assign any political views to my comment, I merely discuss the technicalities of the protocol.

The protocol is the same algorithm that has existed for years. Bitcoin adds an economic incentive on top of it, hence my designation as an "economic innovation".

[Aqueous]

Using a proof of work to build a distributed ledger of transactions - whether it be of money or messages or anything else - was an original innovation of BitCoin, inspired by Nick Szabo's earlier work. Proof of work was used in hash cash, but not in a peer to peer network. My comments regarding political views were more a response to the article.

[deepinsand]

Good point. I think we're actually on the same page, but with different thoughts on how to classify the "breakthrough".

I consider the technological breakthrough to be hash cash. It couldn't have been possible in a P2P network without the economic incentives reaped from Bitcoin mining.

The analogies to Uber and AirBnB are actually pretty strong here. The tech that brought them to bear was the internet/mobile, but the payment/reputation structure is what made the P2P network possible.

[deepinsand]

Thinking about this more, it's definitely not a breakthrough to use a consensus algorithm to maintain a set of transactions over a distributed system (such as a P2P network). This has been done many, many times.

The only difference is that Bitcoin literally pays the nodes to act nicely.

[nilkn]

I don't think you're giving it its due credit. Einstein's original 1905 paper on special relativity was not much more than a fairly simple combination of previously known results and ideas. Lorentz contraction is named after Lorentz, not Einstein, for a reason, after all.

I'm not saying bitcoin is on the level of relativity. I just disagree with your assessment of the novelty of bitcoin on a technical level.

[shelf]

There is no solution to the Byzantine Generals problem. If you control more than one third of the nodes, you can wreak havoc, and likely do what you please with the network.

You know who has that kind of computing power? States.

[gelutu]

"The value of “Bitcoin as a protocol” is $0" might be true for you but other people evidently differ :)

[wmf]

BTW, https://blockchain.info/stats is off by several orders of magnitude about mining cost and power. It's now about $3/GH/s and 1W/GH/s.