[rdl]

Well, it was "better" on every axis except one -- it was centralized. But anyone could be an issuer of a currency, on his own infrastructure (potentially run by third parties), so while each currency was centralized, you could have an arbitrary number of currencies, and meta-currencies (e.g. a "this is a basket of all USD IOUs from US Fortune 500 companies"). There was no inherently centralized point; open source software, a bunch of loosely connected servers, and using realtime markets for the decentralization.

Being decentralized is a huge advantage for Bitcoin in a lot of scenarios, but where being decentralized doesn't help, Bitcoin has a lot of baggage, is slow, inefficient, not inherently cryptographically secure (i.e. the safety comes from size of network, not for the first participant based on the strength of a public key algorithm). So, IMO, in the ideal world we'll have both something like Bitcoin for when decentralized single currencies are needed, and a bunch of centralized currencies for other purposes.

The closest thing active right now is Chris Odom ("Fellow Traveller")'s Open Transactions (http://opentransactions.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page)

I think they have a commercial company in this area: http://monetas.net/ but I know basically nothing about it.

[jnbiche]

I'm a bit familiar with OT, but even more familiar with Ripple. And as huge of a Bitcoin supporter as I am, even I can admit that Ripple is fundamentally a better, more performant, and probably more secure sytem. Chief cryptographer David Schwartz (JoelKatz) has been doing yeoman's work there. It's too bad the company has been sunk by greed and mismanagement, which in turn gave them a bad rep among Bitcoiners.

I have no idea what your system is, but if it was similar to Ripple (and it sounds a bit like it) then I'm beginning to think this is a sounder approach to cryptocash.

[fiatjaf]

I think this all much better than Bitcoin. Also MORE decentralized, because it is not controlled by a clan of money issuers called "miners", instead it is a real competitive market.

[rdl]

Yeah, it's a loosely-coupled decentralized system vs. a tightly-coupled decentralized system. Advantages and disadvantages to each.

[drcode]

> Well, it was "better" on every axis except one -- it was centralized.

Back in the 80s, I built a car that was better than Google's self driving car in every way except one -- A person had to drive it.

[grecy]

> I built a car that was better than Google's self driving car in every way except one -- A person had to drive it.

You built your own car, in the 80s? Awesome. Got any pics? What were the stats? I imagine designing your own engine and gearbox was fun!

Yes, I'm being sarcastic, but it's to point out something very important. The OP actually built what he's talking about. Sure, it had some limitations, but he really did build it. You, however, did not build a car.

[rdl]

There's a fundamental difference between "centralized, like gmail.com" and "decentralized, like everyone running their own mail server" (which is what what I built, OT, etc. are) and "decentralized, like bitcoin (well, bitmessage, in this analogy)".

I'd argue that gmail is farther from "everyone runs a mail server" than "everyone runs a mail server" is from something like bitcoin/bitmessage.

[drcode]

Fair enough, I suppose I've complained in the past that folks on HN are too negative when people discuss products they've built.

[Dylan16807]

The GP isn't mocking the OP's work, just trying to point out it's a total apple and oranges situation.

[meowface]

FTP is every bit better than BitTorrent, except for that whole centralization thing.

[atmosx]

FTP is awful. It was designed at a time where opening random ports back and forth was acceptable. Use ssh/rsync if you wanna just file transfer.

Bittorent is trying solve another set of problems, not file transfers.

[0xbadcafebee]

Eh. ssh/rsync is a hack, and not a very good one at that imho. scp is closer to being more useful, and rsync's native daemon/protocol is also good, though obviously not secure. FXSP is my favorite form of secure file transfer; accounts are independent from the system users, you have total control over the transfers, and they're between high-bandwidth bastions which the user doesn't need direct access to (not to mention the client doesn't have to stay connected to transfer the file[s]!)

[acqq]

You mean this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_eXchange_Protocol ? So what's about

"Enabling FXP support can make a server vulnerable to an exploit known as FTP bounce. As a result of this, FTP server software often has FXP disabled by default."

[peterwwillis]

That's.... dumb. It's not a vulnerability, it's a feature. The entire point of using FXP is to connect one server to another remote server. With FTP it was a "vulnerability" because people didn't expect users to send files or connect to random hosts, but with FXP it's the whole point of the protocol. (FTP bounce attacks have also been a solved issue for decades)

[cjg]

I think you are agreeing with your parent post. He's pointing out that BitTorrent is better then FTP and the reason it is better is because of the decentralisation, thus addressing rdl's claim that his digital currency was better than BitCoin, but centralised.

[atmosx]

I sure do!

[quink]

> Well, it was "better" on every axis except one -- it was centralized.

I can assure you that if Bitcoin wasn't decentralised by design (which is like saying 'if this wooden desk wasn't made of wood'), it'd likely be better than whatever you're talking about by a wide margin.

In fact, half the people in here could build you something better than Bitcoin if you just took away that darn decentralisation aspect.

[jonknee]

Why the hate? The OP had an interesting comment about working on a project 30 years ago that is still a problem being worked on today. BTC would have been a pretty spectacular fail in the 1980s, different times call for different solutions.

[fiatjaf]

You don't even know what is he talking about.