Tuesday, November 26, 2013

People dont realize the potential

I've been asked by a few people lately if they missed the Bitcoin bus.   My answer is a hard, stern no.    A couple reasons

1) user adoption in western countries is low.   I'm pretty sure when I walk into any building i'm the only one that uses bitcoin

2) China is just now getting on board, and all of china (1.2 billion people) has a few merchants accepting bitcoin

3)  We aren't even talking about India yet.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/internet/Bangalore-to-host-Indias-first-Bitcoin-conference/articleshow/26410751.cms

Now we are!

Its so important to realize we are talking about changing the ENTIRE WORLD, and we currently have perhaps a couple million users.

When your grandma uses bitcoin for services, perhaps by then it has neared its maximum potential.  In a similar way
  -when did you grandma get a facebook account?
  -when did your grandma get a smartphone?
  -when did your grandma get email?

Enjoy!

Sunday, November 10, 2013

Bitcoin Goes to Washington - A scary bitcoin future.

   Within the next few weeks, popular public members from the bitcoin community will be summoned to speak on capital hill to some senate committees to begin the public discussion on if/ and how they should regulate bitcoin.

This is both good and bad.

  The outcome of these hearings will likely address certain issues as that go as deep as the question of if bitcoin is even legal.   I feel that large companies in the space (google, microsoft, apple) have stayed out of bitcoin entirely because they can't risk their companies on something that may be illegal.
   In reality it doesn't even matter if they decide its illegal or not.  the US does not have jurisdiction over bitcoin, and bitcoin is a world wide currency.

   The good part is that the government could release an official stance on bitcoin, and the result of which would be more companies adopting it.

The best thing that could happen would be the the US government to say "its legal and we are not going to touch it in any way".  Of course this isn't going to happen.

   Here is the hard part for the US Government.   Bitcoin directly attacks banks and the federal reserve.    I fully expect the senate committees to ask for things, such as reversible transactions, be built into the bitcoin protocol.   This will never happen, but if they demand it.... it would be like asking algebra to change its rules.... it just can't happen, and doesn't make sense to even ask it.
________________-
  Here is something that could be the future of the US banking system, if the US was to be a bitcoin based economy.   The US essentially has to build their own rules ontop of the bitcoin protocal, this is how it would be done (this actual works BTW)

Step 1) The US Government would wait until Bitcoin 1.0 software is release with multi-signature transactions.  Currently, just 1 private key will move bitcoin around the world, but with multi-signature transactions, you need any 2 of 3 private keys.  This is important to understand so if your reading this, make sure you understand it.
Step 2) The US Government then works with banks to implement the multi-signature transactions into the current banking system.   To create a series of signatures, a bitcoin holder would go into a bank and request a new bitcoin account.    The bank would keep one private key, and would send one the a US Government office(perhaps the federal reserve).   The account opener gets the third key
Step 3) When the account holder wants to spend money, the system uses the banks private key and the account holders private key.    This is no different than how checks work today.
Step 4) Nobody that receives bitcoins would be allowed to receive them into account that wasn't registered with the banking system
Step 5) If an account holder lost their private key, they would have to contact the government for a replacement, or a new account
Step 5a)  If a bank was compromised or robbed, the account holder would work the the government to replace the third private key.
Step 5b) If the account holder didn't pay his taxes, the bank and the government can move your money
Step 6) If the system recognized an input that wasn't part of the system, they would either hold it or just plain reject it.   This would be done at the banking level.  Again, the banks/gov hold the power to send and receive the account holders money, because they have 1 of the 3 private keys.
Step 7) If a account holder needed to take a transaction from an account not registered with the system, they would need to prove what it was, where it came from, and even pay a tax on it (or something).
Step 8) When the government needs more money in this case, they contact banks and take your money via a bail in.
Step 9) When the government needs to fund a war, they just take whatever money it needs.
__________________
Again, anybody receiving bitcoins has to register 3 keys with your local bank
Anybody spending bitcoins has to register 3 keys with your local bank.
Using an account not registered with a bank would be illegal, but 100% possible.

Now we all know we can bypass the system.   I can generate my own keys, and spend money outside this system.   There is no way they can stop this, but they can make it illegal to do.   It would be similar to buying drugs.  Because the blockchain is public information, the IRS would know if you sent money from your registered account to an un-registered account.  They would also know if you received money from an unregistered account with your registered account.    Registered accounts could not use mixing services because they would be un-registered accounts.

The only want to stay out of the system would be unregistered accounts to unregistered accounts.  The only way to get money into an unregistered account would be to mine it, or have it exist before the registration.
________
Sender - " do you take outside transactions"
Receiver - "yes, yes I do" or "no thats illegal i'm calling the cops and getting a reward"
________
The above system works, it allows the Government and banks to maintain control, but they can no longer simply print money.  

I will say though for myself, If they do implement the above in 10 years, bitcoin would be HUGE and i'd move to a more bitcoin friendly country.
___________
To implement this would be similar to Obamacare.   The US would pass a banking law, opening a new government office.   Banks would have a deadline to implement their system with the Governments.    Bitcoin holders would have a 1 year grace period to integrate their bitcoin, perhaps a 1 year period where unregistered bitcoin was taxed 20%, and another one year period where unregistered bitcoin was taxed at 40%, etc etc..

Its truly a scary system, and if implemented on a world wide scale, would be crushing.   Bitcoin would still be better than the current system, but it would lose most of its benefits.

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Risks

I have posted mostly on here about how positive bitcoin is, and how much potential is there.... I'm going to use this post to play devils advocate and try to destroy the network.   I'm 100% honest here..  What I will not do is make 'uneducated' arguments though.   There are certain arguments that are only arguments because the argue-er doesn't understand some basic fundamentals.   Those arguments are.....

-Bitcoin is not backed by anything (today, no currency is backed by anything)
-What if the internet goes down or the power goes out (the only thing with value here is food)
-I can't hold it in my hand, its not physical (of course you can)
-the government will regulate it (you can't hold a gun to algebra or the law of gravity)

Here are some valid arguments.
__________
In my opinion, software updates are the biggest threat to the Bitcoin economy.   A hard fork is an update that changes or removes some of the rules of the network.    A software update that dos not have75% of the consensus of the miners, or a software update that is execute poorly would absolutely destroy the network and everything it has built to date.

An update that splits the block chain into BTC1 and BTC2, leaves its users with 100% of their coins on each fork, at 50% of the value.

Luckily, anybody trying to push a software update to the network has their own best interest in mind.   Nobody with coins would try and push a malicious update.

However a botched software update could do serious damage.    Currently today, the bitcoin foundation would organize a hard fork.   Currently the network is small enough to easily organize, but in the future, nobody knows?

I'll just note here than ANYBODY can fork the bitcoin blockchain... but the value of your new blockchain will ONLY be based on the number of users that use it.    If the US Government wants to change the rules with their own blockchain, go for it.   Its actually encouraged..... but I doubt any miners, exchanges or users would use it.

I mentioned this in the previous post, but I'll say it again.  How would you run a software update to the law of gravity?
_______
51% and now 25% attacks are a small concern.   With each day, the growing mining difficulty makes it harder and more expensive to launch such attacks.    Again, nobody with money INVESTED in the system is going to work to destroy the system.... well perhaps a government might.    Each passing day makes the network more secure.
_______
A weakness in SHA256 or in Eliptic curve encryption could cause problems for the network, but not as bad as a botched update.

A weakness in the used encryption method would not happen overnight.... first, encryption methods are weakened.... so instead of taking 500 million years to break encryption, maybe it only takes 2 years.   The result is that the network has time to change the encryption method before its officially "broken"
________
A better currency
  This is another great argument.

 What if somebody or something creates a BETTER internet currency.

An educated bitcoin user ENCOURAGES this.    Bitcoin is a challenge to the world.  You've seen the power of internet currency, now do it better.

To date, nobody has.  There are some 100 'alt coins' and a couple centralized systems like ripple.   None of them to date have anything on bitcoin.

Its kind of like saying to somebody, go home and code a better internet, or code a better email system.... it seems like it just can't happen.  If you did somehow manage to code a better cryptocurrency, bitcoin would just take your ideas and integrate it into the bitcoin system.

If it does happen, it will not be an overnight sensation.  This better currency will slowly win over users, and an educated user of bitcoin will split their value 50/50 amongst competing currencies.

_________
Unknowns.

There are any number of unknown potential problems out there.    However because the bitcoin blockchain is an infinitely secure database, the worst thing that can happen is that the network continues from the last known good block.  

If something breaks, the network rewinds to the last good block... gets consensus and moves on our way... however the damage done by the potential problem could take years to recuperate in market price.




Monday, October 28, 2013

Worldwide software update

I had an interesting thought today in relation to software updates.

If the laws of physics, say friction or gravity, were to run off software, and we had to run an update to that software..... what would that look like?

Typically we get software updates from a manufacturer, and we select when we run the update, perhaps on our computer before we go home for the day.   We update our software when it is convenient to us.

Bitcoin is a little bit different.   Bitcoin is software, for money.   One thing about money and economic activity is that you can't just simply turn it off to run a software update.

First, lets me say that we dont ever need to update the software.   The software works fine just how it is, and would operate without any maintenance from here until the end of time.

Second, software updates in bitcoin are referred to as "forks".   There are 'hard' forks and 'soft' forks.

A soft fork is a software update that doesn't change the rules of the network.  A soft fork can add features, but it cannot remove or change existing features.  These updates can be done at the leisure of the miner, exchange, or payment processor.

A hard fork is much more serious.   A hard fork must be done simultaneously around the world until there is a consensus of the miners.   With proper coordination this poses little to no risk, but if implemented poorly, could destroy everything that bitcoin has built to date.
_______
With a 'best case' hard fork scenario, all miners and exchanges are notified of an up and coming software update.    Perhaps a specific time and specific date.
  When the time comes, most everybody needs to shut off the current running software, run the update, then continue again.   This affects a couple groups of people.
  -Bitcoin miners need to stop, so that transactions are not verified under the old software.  Note that 100% of miners dont need to stop, just enough to stop solving blocks in a reasonable amount of time.   If 75% of miners shut down(perhaps just 5 pools), then to get 6 transactions verified would take about 4 hours.  Plenty of time.
  -Bitcoin users:  At the designated time, users are not affected, because mining and transaction verification has stopped.    It would kind of be the same as all Visa cards being declined for a 10 minute period today.
  -Exchanges.   Since the blockchain has come to a stop, incoming transactions to exchanges stop as well.

In general, under a hard fork scenario in bitcoin, the entire world would undergo a software update.   People would just stand in the starbucks line.... waiting for the go ahead.
_______
  The worst case scenario for a hard fork would be complete disorganization.   Miners would still verify transactions under the old software, which are then invalid once the new software meets consensus.  This would be particularly disastrous for exchanges, as they trade bitcoins for dollars, then send the dollars away only to find their bitcoins dont exist.
  For the consumer this is slightly less important.   If you paid your cable bill, then would just come back to you and have you pay it again.  If you had bought a TV, best buy would contact you asking for payment again.   This is still a chaotic environment, but still manageable.
________
A soft fork doesn't really matter a whole lot..   A soft fork would add features to the network.   Miners that dont update their software done get to use those features...(i think)  Not really a big deal.   An up and coming soft fork could be in multi-signature transactions.    Transactions today require 1 private key, but the software is coming that will allow us to use any 2 of 3 private keys.    If a miner found a block without this software update, the users transaction would wait until a miner WITH the software update found the block.

 Note that multi-signature transactions are the future of bitcoin banking/security.    One private key to the owner of the bitcoins, one private key to a bank or hot wallet (coinbase) and one private key to a trusted third party, in the event that one of the three lose their keys.   Then coinbase can't run off with your coins, and neither can sombody that stole your private keys through a hack of some-sort.
____________
Lets have fun with this hard fork idea.   Lets say the US government invests 100 million dollars in bitcoin mining and gets 51% of the network.     Since they own 51% of the network, then update the software to increase the cap to 42 million coins, of which they automatically get 20 million of.   O NO!!

  Not really.    The only thing they did was fork the bitcoin blockchain.  Now we have BTC1 and BTC2.   Users, exchanges, miners and payment processors can then chose which version of the blockchain they want to continue with.

The Government could setup their own exchange of BTC2 if the wanted to, but nobody would use it.
______________
 An interesting note here.... is who coordinates updates of the sofware in the event of a hard fork?   The Bitcoin Foundation is the un-appointed lead development team for bitcoin, however what if they want to run a software update nobody wants?   It is a serious concern.  
  Where I see this going is decentralized development.   There will be many many bitcoin foundations throughout the world.   One for each country, that may have each countries own interests in mind.    Perhaps all the bit coin foundations of all the countries would lead, democratically, software updates.    If those foundations cannot come to an agreement, the software doesn't get updated.... which is just fine.    I say its fine, because 2nd tier services and do ANYTHING that a software update can do. (I.E. coinbase can make their own rules for coinbase).   The free market will decide....
 

Thursday, October 24, 2013

You are here.

  Just by simply reading this post, it is my opinion you are at the beginning of a HUGE technological adoption curve.   This is an image of the rate of adoption of new technologies.



  I mentioned to one of my buddies last night, whom is part of my generation, that we've all asked these questions.

Do you have a computer?   in 1995 this was a valid question.  Today it is just assumed.

Do you have the internet?  in 1997 this was a valid question.  Today it is just assumed

Do you have an email address?  in 1998 this was a valid question.  Today it is just assumed.

Do you have a cell phone?   in 2003 this was a valid question.  Today it is just assumed.

Do you have a paypal account? in 2003 this was a valid question.  Today it is just assumed.

Do you have a facebook account  in 2008 this was a valid question.  Today it is just assumed.  We are still working on this one.

Do you have a smart phone? Today this is a still a valid question, but its going towards assumption.

I believe the next question is... Do you have a bitcoin wallet?

Or perhaps people out there believe that we have maximized our technological advances capable via the internet and we "done" being more sophisticated.....


Here is another image from this website, which is a good, short read.  link