Complete detail of how Bitcoin works - Revision history

Taras at 21:49, 14 March 2015

2015-03-14T21:49:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:49, 14 March 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~===~~[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrlgw5KpkXM Steve Gibson's Explanation of Bitcoin]~~===~~		'''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrlgw5KpkXM Steve Gibson's Explanation of Bitcoin]'''

	====Out-of-Date Information====		====Out-of-Date Information====
Line 39:		Line 39:
	===References===		===References===
	<references />		<references />
			{{italic}}

Taras: Taras moved page Factual inaccuracies in videos to Complete detail of how Bitcoin works

2015-03-14T21:48:46Z

Taras moved page Factual inaccuracies in videos to Complete detail of how Bitcoin works

← Older revision	Revision as of 21:48, 14 March 2015
(No difference)

Midnightmagic: /* Factual Inaccuracies */

2014-01-31T23:05:49Z

Factual Inaccuracies

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:05, 31 January 2014
Line 28:		Line 28:
	* There '''are''' ways in fact to track bitcoin users, even if you create all the pubkeys you want. Staying relatively anonymous doesn't require you to just create a bunch of pubkeys. It is quite a bit harder than that.<ref name="bitcoin analysis1">[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FaQNPCqG58 Bitcoin - An Analysis], A 28c3 talk describing in depth some possible methods for de-anonymizing users, amongst quite a number of other topics studied</ref><ref name="bitcoin analyis2">[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQoykhNoBbY Black OPs of TCP/IP], Dan Kaminsky rambling about Bitcoin security</ref>		* There '''are''' ways in fact to track bitcoin users, even if you create all the pubkeys you want. Staying relatively anonymous doesn't require you to just create a bunch of pubkeys. It is quite a bit harder than that.<ref name="bitcoin analysis1">[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FaQNPCqG58 Bitcoin - An Analysis], A 28c3 talk describing in depth some possible methods for de-anonymizing users, amongst quite a number of other topics studied</ref><ref name="bitcoin analyis2">[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQoykhNoBbY Black OPs of TCP/IP], Dan Kaminsky rambling about Bitcoin security</ref>
	* CPU mining is basically no point anymore. Nor was there a point even back then.		* CPU mining is basically no point anymore. Nor was there a point even back then.
	* 21,000,000 is not the real number. The real number of bitcoins ever created in the far future will be 20999839.77085750 - 0.00000001 bitcoins, assuming nobody ever again does what midnightmagic did<ref name="underpay">[https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=7253.msg184414#msg184414 (in his case, as a tribute)], midnightmagic claims to have underpaid himself by 1x10<sup>-8</sup>, but he accidentally threw away a bunch of fees too</ref><ref name="blockexplorer underpay">[http://blockexplorer.com/b/124724 124724], the full blockexplorer decode of the underpay block</ref>, and pays themselves less, ~~And~~ that there are no further bugs in the program which incidentally destroy more bitcoins.		* 21,000,000 is not the real number. The real number of bitcoins ever created in the far future will be 20999839.77085750 - 0.00000001 bitcoins, assuming nobody ever again does what midnightmagic did<ref name="underpay">[https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=7253.msg184414#msg184414 (in his case, as a tribute)], midnightmagic claims to have underpaid himself by 1x10<sup>-8</sup>, but he accidentally threw away a bunch of fees too</ref><ref name="blockexplorer underpay">[http://blockexplorer.com/b/124724 124724], the full blockexplorer decode of the underpay block</ref>, and pays themselves less, '''and''' that there are no further bugs in the program which incidentally destroy more bitcoins.

	====Imprecise Wording====		====Imprecise Wording====

Midnightmagic: /* Factual Inaccuracies */

2014-01-31T23:05:27Z

Factual Inaccuracies

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:05, 31 January 2014
Line 28:		Line 28:
	* There '''are''' ways in fact to track bitcoin users, even if you create all the pubkeys you want. Staying relatively anonymous doesn't require you to just create a bunch of pubkeys. It is quite a bit harder than that.<ref name="bitcoin analysis1">[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FaQNPCqG58 Bitcoin - An Analysis], A 28c3 talk describing in depth some possible methods for de-anonymizing users, amongst quite a number of other topics studied</ref><ref name="bitcoin analyis2">[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQoykhNoBbY Black OPs of TCP/IP], Dan Kaminsky rambling about Bitcoin security</ref>		* There '''are''' ways in fact to track bitcoin users, even if you create all the pubkeys you want. Staying relatively anonymous doesn't require you to just create a bunch of pubkeys. It is quite a bit harder than that.<ref name="bitcoin analysis1">[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FaQNPCqG58 Bitcoin - An Analysis], A 28c3 talk describing in depth some possible methods for de-anonymizing users, amongst quite a number of other topics studied</ref><ref name="bitcoin analyis2">[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQoykhNoBbY Black OPs of TCP/IP], Dan Kaminsky rambling about Bitcoin security</ref>
	* CPU mining is basically no point anymore. Nor was there a point even back then.		* CPU mining is basically no point anymore. Nor was there a point even back then.
	* 21,000,000 is not the real number. The real number of bitcoins ever created in the far future will be ~~20999999~~.~~97690000~~ - 0.00000001 bitcoins, assuming nobody ever again does what midnightmagic did<ref name="underpay">[https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=7253.msg184414#msg184414 (in his case, as a tribute)], midnightmagic claims to have underpaid himself by 1x10<sup>-8</sup>, but he accidentally threw away a bunch of fees too</ref><ref name="blockexplorer underpay">[http://blockexplorer.com/b/124724 124724], the full blockexplorer decode of the underpay block</ref>, and pays themselves less.		* 21,000,000 is not the real number. The real number of bitcoins ever created in the far future will be 20999839.77085750 - 0.00000001 bitcoins, assuming nobody ever again does what midnightmagic did<ref name="underpay">[https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=7253.msg184414#msg184414 (in his case, as a tribute)], midnightmagic claims to have underpaid himself by 1x10<sup>-8</sup>, but he accidentally threw away a bunch of fees too</ref><ref name="blockexplorer underpay">[http://blockexplorer.com/b/124724 124724], the full blockexplorer decode of the underpay block</ref>, and pays themselves less, And that there are no further bugs in the program which incidentally destroy more bitcoins.

	====Imprecise Wording====		====Imprecise Wording====

Adam3us: /* Factual Inaccuracies */ very minor: spacing typo in previous

2013-10-21T17:23:08Z

Factual Inaccuracies: very minor: spacing typo in previous

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:23, 21 October 2013
Line 16:		Line 16:
	* Humans didn't just choose gold just because it was scarce. We chose gold for a whole host of other properties.<ref name="why gold">[http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/02/15/131430755/a-chemist-explains-why-gold-beat-out-lithium-osmium-einsteinium Why Gold for Currency], Reasons why gold was the best (and perhaps only) choice for currency on Earth</ref>		* Humans didn't just choose gold just because it was scarce. We chose gold for a whole host of other properties.<ref name="why gold">[http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/02/15/131430755/a-chemist-explains-why-gold-beat-out-lithium-osmium-einsteinium Why Gold for Currency], Reasons why gold was the best (and perhaps only) choice for currency on Earth</ref>
	* Satoshi's paper doesn't fully explain how bitcoin works, or else we'd all be able to just point to that paper and let newbies read it.<ref name="bitcoin paper">[http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System], The seminal paper by Satoshi Nakamoto himself</ref>		* Satoshi's paper doesn't fully explain how bitcoin works, or else we'd all be able to just point to that paper and let newbies read it.<ref name="bitcoin paper">[http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System], The seminal paper by Satoshi Nakamoto himself</ref>
	* It was incorrectly claimed that Adam Back invented the concept of proof of work. Bitcoin does ~~useBack~~'s hashcash proof-of-work because bitcoin needs specific properties and hashcash is the simplest (and so far only) proof of work with these required properties (primecoin maybe the new exception). But the PoW concept is older, and due to Dwork & Naor in their crypto 1992 paper.		* It was incorrectly claimed that Adam Back invented the concept of proof of work. Bitcoin does use Back's hashcash proof-of-work because bitcoin needs specific properties and hashcash is the simplest (and so far only) proof of work with these required properties (primecoin maybe the new exception). But the PoW concept is older, and due to Dwork & Naor in their crypto 1992 paper.
	* Explanation of hashing is wrong: To get 20 bits of 0 at the beginning of a hash, you still don't get a '''guarantee''' that after 2<sup>20</sup> hashes, you have all zeroes, and that half that number on average are what's necessary to find a 20-zero solution. Basically this whole explanation is just plain wrong.		* Explanation of hashing is wrong: To get 20 bits of 0 at the beginning of a hash, you still don't get a '''guarantee''' that after 2<sup>20</sup> hashes, you have all zeroes, and that half that number on average are what's necessary to find a 20-zero solution. Basically this whole explanation is just plain wrong.
	* Hashcash didn't fail because legitimate mailing lists are indistinguishable from spammers. He states that there are no measures that could be taken to allow legit mass-mailing lists while denying spamming. This is factually incorrect.		* Hashcash didn't fail because legitimate mailing lists are indistinguishable from spammers. He states that there are no measures that could be taken to allow legit mass-mailing lists while denying spamming. This is factually incorrect.

Adam3us: /* Factual Inaccuracies */ prefix with clearer statement about the factual inaccuracy (pow invention attribution), delete extraneous text in same point

2013-10-21T17:21:30Z

Factual Inaccuracies: prefix with clearer statement about the factual inaccuracy (pow invention attribution), delete extraneous text in same point

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:21, 21 October 2013
Line 16:		Line 16:
	* Humans didn't just choose gold just because it was scarce. We chose gold for a whole host of other properties.<ref name="why gold">[http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/02/15/131430755/a-chemist-explains-why-gold-beat-out-lithium-osmium-einsteinium Why Gold for Currency], Reasons why gold was the best (and perhaps only) choice for currency on Earth</ref>		* Humans didn't just choose gold just because it was scarce. We chose gold for a whole host of other properties.<ref name="why gold">[http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/02/15/131430755/a-chemist-explains-why-gold-beat-out-lithium-osmium-einsteinium Why Gold for Currency], Reasons why gold was the best (and perhaps only) choice for currency on Earth</ref>
	* Satoshi's paper doesn't fully explain how bitcoin works, or else we'd all be able to just point to that paper and let newbies read it.<ref name="bitcoin paper">[http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System], The seminal paper by Satoshi Nakamoto himself</ref>		* Satoshi's paper doesn't fully explain how bitcoin works, or else we'd all be able to just point to that paper and let newbies read it.<ref name="bitcoin paper">[http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System], The seminal paper by Satoshi Nakamoto himself</ref>
	* ~~Bitcoin uses~~ Adam Back's hashcash proof-of-work because bitcoin needs specific properties and hashcash is the simplest (and so far only) proof of work with these required properties (primecoin maybe the new exception). But the PoW concept is older, and due to Dwork & Naor in their crypto 1992 ~~paper. Satoshi cited Back's hashcash paper in the Bitcoin~~ paper.		* It was incorrectly claimed that Adam Back invented the concept of proof of work. Bitcoin does useBack's hashcash proof-of-work because bitcoin needs specific properties and hashcash is the simplest (and so far only) proof of work with these required properties (primecoin maybe the new exception). But the PoW concept is older, and due to Dwork & Naor in their crypto 1992 paper.
	* Explanation of hashing is wrong: To get 20 bits of 0 at the beginning of a hash, you still don't get a '''guarantee''' that after 2<sup>20</sup> hashes, you have all zeroes, and that half that number on average are what's necessary to find a 20-zero solution. Basically this whole explanation is just plain wrong.		* Explanation of hashing is wrong: To get 20 bits of 0 at the beginning of a hash, you still don't get a '''guarantee''' that after 2<sup>20</sup> hashes, you have all zeroes, and that half that number on average are what's necessary to find a 20-zero solution. Basically this whole explanation is just plain wrong.
	* Hashcash didn't fail because legitimate mailing lists are indistinguishable from spammers. He states that there are no measures that could be taken to allow legit mass-mailing lists while denying spamming. This is factually incorrect.		* Hashcash didn't fail because legitimate mailing lists are indistinguishable from spammers. He states that there are no measures that could be taken to allow legit mass-mailing lists while denying spamming. This is factually incorrect.

Adam3us: /* Factual Inaccuracies */ simplify explanation of innacuracy about who invented proof-of-work

2013-10-20T13:38:42Z

Factual Inaccuracies: simplify explanation of innacuracy about who invented proof-of-work

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:38, 20 October 2013
Line 16:		Line 16:
	* Humans didn't just choose gold just because it was scarce. We chose gold for a whole host of other properties.<ref name="why gold">[http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/02/15/131430755/a-chemist-explains-why-gold-beat-out-lithium-osmium-einsteinium Why Gold for Currency], Reasons why gold was the best (and perhaps only) choice for currency on Earth</ref>		* Humans didn't just choose gold just because it was scarce. We chose gold for a whole host of other properties.<ref name="why gold">[http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/02/15/131430755/a-chemist-explains-why-gold-beat-out-lithium-osmium-einsteinium Why Gold for Currency], Reasons why gold was the best (and perhaps only) choice for currency on Earth</ref>
	* Satoshi's paper doesn't fully explain how bitcoin works, or else we'd all be able to just point to that paper and let newbies read it.<ref name="bitcoin paper">[http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System], The seminal paper by Satoshi Nakamoto himself</ref>		* Satoshi's paper doesn't fully explain how bitcoin works, or else we'd all be able to just point to that paper and let newbies read it.<ref name="bitcoin paper">[http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System], The seminal paper by Satoshi Nakamoto himself</ref>
	* ~~References 1997 work by~~ Adam Back's hashcash ~~anti~~-~~spam as the source of the POW idea. While it is almost certainly so that Adam Back is an independent originator~~ of ~~the idea of using a hash~~-~~based function as POW~~ and it is ~~likely he invented hash-based POW as it is used in Bitcoin~~ (~~he himself insists that he independently came up~~ with the ~~idea of using a hash-based function for POW,~~) the ~~idea of using POW in any form~~ is ~~actually much~~ older~~. One example is the paper by Dwork~~ and ~~Naor, presenting the idea of using processing power~~ to ~~combat junk mail to Crypto'92, (including a hash-using Fiat-Shamir signature as a price function (see p.5, ss 4.2)) <ref name="counterexample">[http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~naor/PAPERS/pvp.ps~~ Dwork ~~and~~ Naor~~, Crypto'92], a single counter-example proving the assertion that the POW idea originated [b]entirely[/b] with Adam Back somewhat wrong. There is a link to this~~ paper ~~directly from the [http://www.hashcash~~.~~org/papers/ Hashcash Papers] site itself.</ref>NOTE: The POW function as used in Bitcoin could not be replaced with anything described in the Dwork paper, and~~ Satoshi ~~himself~~ cited ~~Adam~~ Back in ~~his~~ Bitcoin paper.		* Bitcoin uses Adam Back's hashcash proof-of-work because bitcoin needs specific properties and hashcash is the simplest (and so far only) proof of work with these required properties (primecoin maybe the new exception). But the PoW concept is older, and due to Dwork & Naor in their crypto 1992 paper. Satoshi cited Back's hashcash paper in the Bitcoin paper.
	* Explanation of hashing is wrong: To get 20 bits of 0 at the beginning of a hash, you still don't get a '''guarantee''' that after 2<sup>20</sup> hashes, you have all zeroes, and that half that number on average are what's necessary to find a 20-zero solution. Basically this whole explanation is just plain wrong.		* Explanation of hashing is wrong: To get 20 bits of 0 at the beginning of a hash, you still don't get a '''guarantee''' that after 2<sup>20</sup> hashes, you have all zeroes, and that half that number on average are what's necessary to find a 20-zero solution. Basically this whole explanation is just plain wrong.
	* Hashcash didn't fail because legitimate mailing lists are indistinguishable from spammers. He states that there are no measures that could be taken to allow legit mass-mailing lists while denying spamming. This is factually incorrect.		* Hashcash didn't fail because legitimate mailing lists are indistinguishable from spammers. He states that there are no measures that could be taken to allow legit mass-mailing lists while denying spamming. This is factually incorrect.

Midnightmagic: /* Factual Inaccuracies */

2013-10-05T23:06:26Z

Factual Inaccuracies

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:06, 5 October 2013
Line 16:		Line 16:
	* Humans didn't just choose gold just because it was scarce. We chose gold for a whole host of other properties.<ref name="why gold">[http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/02/15/131430755/a-chemist-explains-why-gold-beat-out-lithium-osmium-einsteinium Why Gold for Currency], Reasons why gold was the best (and perhaps only) choice for currency on Earth</ref>		* Humans didn't just choose gold just because it was scarce. We chose gold for a whole host of other properties.<ref name="why gold">[http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/02/15/131430755/a-chemist-explains-why-gold-beat-out-lithium-osmium-einsteinium Why Gold for Currency], Reasons why gold was the best (and perhaps only) choice for currency on Earth</ref>
	* Satoshi's paper doesn't fully explain how bitcoin works, or else we'd all be able to just point to that paper and let newbies read it.<ref name="bitcoin paper">[http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System], The seminal paper by Satoshi Nakamoto himself</ref>		* Satoshi's paper doesn't fully explain how bitcoin works, or else we'd all be able to just point to that paper and let newbies read it.<ref name="bitcoin paper">[http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System], The seminal paper by Satoshi Nakamoto himself</ref>
	* References 1997 work by Adam Back's hashcash anti-spam as the source of the POW idea. While it is almost certainly so that Adam Back is an independent originator of the idea of using a hash-based function as POW and it is likely he invented hash-based POW as it is used in Bitcoin (he himself insists that he independently came up with the idea of using a hash-based function for POW,) the idea of using POW in any form is actually much older. One example is the paper by Dwork and Naor, presenting the idea of using processing power to combat junk mail to Crypto'92, (including a hash-using Fiat-Shamir signature as a price function (see p.5, ss 4.2)) <ref name="counterexample">[http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~naor/PAPERS/pvp.ps Dwork and Naor, Crypto'92], a single counter-example proving the assertion that the POW idea originated [b]entirely[/b] with Adam Back somewhat wrong. There is a link to this paper directly from the [http://www.hashcash.org/papers/ Hashcash Papers] site itself.</ref>NOTE: The POW function as used in Bitcoin could not be replaced with anything described in the Dwork paper.		* References 1997 work by Adam Back's hashcash anti-spam as the source of the POW idea. While it is almost certainly so that Adam Back is an independent originator of the idea of using a hash-based function as POW and it is likely he invented hash-based POW as it is used in Bitcoin (he himself insists that he independently came up with the idea of using a hash-based function for POW,) the idea of using POW in any form is actually much older. One example is the paper by Dwork and Naor, presenting the idea of using processing power to combat junk mail to Crypto'92, (including a hash-using Fiat-Shamir signature as a price function (see p.5, ss 4.2)) <ref name="counterexample">[http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~naor/PAPERS/pvp.ps Dwork and Naor, Crypto'92], a single counter-example proving the assertion that the POW idea originated [b]entirely[/b] with Adam Back somewhat wrong. There is a link to this paper directly from the [http://www.hashcash.org/papers/ Hashcash Papers] site itself.</ref>NOTE: The POW function as used in Bitcoin could not be replaced with anything described in the Dwork paper, and Satoshi himself cited Adam Back in his Bitcoin paper.
	* Explanation of hashing is wrong: To get 20 bits of 0 at the beginning of a hash, you still don't get a '''guarantee''' that after 2<sup>20</sup> hashes, you have all zeroes, and that half that number on average are what's necessary to find a 20-zero solution. Basically this whole explanation is just plain wrong.		* Explanation of hashing is wrong: To get 20 bits of 0 at the beginning of a hash, you still don't get a '''guarantee''' that after 2<sup>20</sup> hashes, you have all zeroes, and that half that number on average are what's necessary to find a 20-zero solution. Basically this whole explanation is just plain wrong.
	* Hashcash didn't fail because legitimate mailing lists are indistinguishable from spammers. He states that there are no measures that could be taken to allow legit mass-mailing lists while denying spamming. This is factually incorrect.		* Hashcash didn't fail because legitimate mailing lists are indistinguishable from spammers. He states that there are no measures that could be taken to allow legit mass-mailing lists while denying spamming. This is factually incorrect.

Midnightmagic: /* Factual Inaccuracies */

2013-10-05T23:01:38Z

Factual Inaccuracies

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:01, 5 October 2013
Line 16:		Line 16:
	* Humans didn't just choose gold just because it was scarce. We chose gold for a whole host of other properties.<ref name="why gold">[http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/02/15/131430755/a-chemist-explains-why-gold-beat-out-lithium-osmium-einsteinium Why Gold for Currency], Reasons why gold was the best (and perhaps only) choice for currency on Earth</ref>		* Humans didn't just choose gold just because it was scarce. We chose gold for a whole host of other properties.<ref name="why gold">[http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/02/15/131430755/a-chemist-explains-why-gold-beat-out-lithium-osmium-einsteinium Why Gold for Currency], Reasons why gold was the best (and perhaps only) choice for currency on Earth</ref>
	* Satoshi's paper doesn't fully explain how bitcoin works, or else we'd all be able to just point to that paper and let newbies read it.<ref name="bitcoin paper">[http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System], The seminal paper by Satoshi Nakamoto himself</ref>		* Satoshi's paper doesn't fully explain how bitcoin works, or else we'd all be able to just point to that paper and let newbies read it.<ref name="bitcoin paper">[http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System], The seminal paper by Satoshi Nakamoto himself</ref>
	* References 1997 work by Adam Back's hashcash anti-spam as the source of POW idea. ~~The~~ idea is actually much older. One ~~counter-~~example is the paper by Dwork and Naor, presenting the idea of using processing power to combat junk mail to ~~Cryto~~'92, (including hash-~~based processing~~-price ~~functions~~) <ref name="counterexample">[http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~naor/PAPERS/pvp.ps Dwork and Naor, Crypto'92], A single counter-example proving the assertion that the POW idea originated with Adam Back wrong. ~~This~~ is ~~actually linked~~ directly from the [http://www.hashcash.org/papers/ Hashcash Papers] site itself.</ref>		* References 1997 work by Adam Back's hashcash anti-spam as the source of the POW idea. While it is almost certainly so that Adam Back is an independent originator of the idea of using a hash-based function as POW and it is likely he invented hash-based POW as it is used in Bitcoin (he himself insists that he independently came up with the idea of using a hash-based function for POW,) the idea of using POW in any form is actually much older. One example is the paper by Dwork and Naor, presenting the idea of using processing power to combat junk mail to Crypto'92, (including a hash-using Fiat-Shamir signature as a price function (see p.5, ss 4.2)) <ref name="counterexample">[http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~naor/PAPERS/pvp.ps Dwork and Naor, Crypto'92], a single counter-example proving the assertion that the POW idea originated [b]entirely[/b] with Adam Back somewhat wrong. There is a link to this paper directly from the [http://www.hashcash.org/papers/ Hashcash Papers] site itself.</ref>NOTE: The POW function as used in Bitcoin could not be replaced with anything described in the Dwork paper.
	* Explanation of hashing is wrong: To get 20 bits of 0 at the beginning of a hash, you still don't get a '''guarantee''' that after 2<sup>20</sup> hashes, you have all zeroes, and that half that number on average are what's necessary to find a 20-zero solution. Basically this whole explanation is just plain wrong.		* Explanation of hashing is wrong: To get 20 bits of 0 at the beginning of a hash, you still don't get a '''guarantee''' that after 2<sup>20</sup> hashes, you have all zeroes, and that half that number on average are what's necessary to find a 20-zero solution. Basically this whole explanation is just plain wrong.
	* Hashcash didn't fail because legitimate mailing lists are indistinguishable from spammers. He states that there are no measures that could be taken to allow legit mass-mailing lists while denying spamming. This is factually incorrect.		* Hashcash didn't fail because legitimate mailing lists are indistinguishable from spammers. He states that there are no measures that could be taken to allow legit mass-mailing lists while denying spamming. This is factually incorrect.

Midnightmagic: this should be up here..

2013-03-08T19:45:34Z

this should be up here..

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:45, 8 March 2013
Line 9:		Line 9:
	* The network is no longer 186GH/s. It is as of this writing 36TH/s.<ref name="sipa hashrate">[http://bitcoin.sipa.be Excellent hashrate graphs], sipa built a regularly-updated set of hashrate graphs</ref>		* The network is no longer 186GH/s. It is as of this writing 36TH/s.<ref name="sipa hashrate">[http://bitcoin.sipa.be Excellent hashrate graphs], sipa built a regularly-updated set of hashrate graphs</ref>
	* The UI no longer works in only two decimal digits of precision.		* The UI no longer works in only two decimal digits of precision.
			* One can no longer use bitcoind to directly generate coins, nor is CPU mining of basically any worth.

	====Factual Inaccuracies====		====Factual Inaccuracies====
Line 14:		Line 15:
	* He asserts that currencies are "synthetic", but people use objects with instrinsic value all the time as currency, so this is incorrect unless you accept the narrow definition of "currency" as a "modern money system issued by a government." <ref name="currency definition">[http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/currency.asp Investopedia "Currency" Definition], A definition of the term as per an online reference</ref>		* He asserts that currencies are "synthetic", but people use objects with instrinsic value all the time as currency, so this is incorrect unless you accept the narrow definition of "currency" as a "modern money system issued by a government." <ref name="currency definition">[http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/currency.asp Investopedia "Currency" Definition], A definition of the term as per an online reference</ref>
	* Humans didn't just choose gold just because it was scarce. We chose gold for a whole host of other properties.<ref name="why gold">[http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/02/15/131430755/a-chemist-explains-why-gold-beat-out-lithium-osmium-einsteinium Why Gold for Currency], Reasons why gold was the best (and perhaps only) choice for currency on Earth</ref>		* Humans didn't just choose gold just because it was scarce. We chose gold for a whole host of other properties.<ref name="why gold">[http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/02/15/131430755/a-chemist-explains-why-gold-beat-out-lithium-osmium-einsteinium Why Gold for Currency], Reasons why gold was the best (and perhaps only) choice for currency on Earth</ref>
	* One can no longer use bitcoind (and couldn't at the time of the video,) to directly generate coins, nor is CPU mining of basically any worth.
	* Satoshi's paper doesn't fully explain how bitcoin works, or else we'd all be able to just point to that paper and let newbies read it.<ref name="bitcoin paper">[http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System], The seminal paper by Satoshi Nakamoto himself</ref>		* Satoshi's paper doesn't fully explain how bitcoin works, or else we'd all be able to just point to that paper and let newbies read it.<ref name="bitcoin paper">[http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System], The seminal paper by Satoshi Nakamoto himself</ref>
	* References 1997 work by Adam Back's hashcash anti-spam as the source of POW idea. The idea is actually much older. One counter-example is the paper by Dwork and Naor, presenting the idea of using processing power to combat junk mail to Cryto'92, (including hash-based processing-price functions) <ref name="counterexample">[http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~naor/PAPERS/pvp.ps Dwork and Naor, Crypto'92], A single counter-example proving the assertion that the POW idea originated with Adam Back wrong. This is actually linked directly from the [http://www.hashcash.org/papers/ Hashcash Papers] site itself.</ref>		* References 1997 work by Adam Back's hashcash anti-spam as the source of POW idea. The idea is actually much older. One counter-example is the paper by Dwork and Naor, presenting the idea of using processing power to combat junk mail to Cryto'92, (including hash-based processing-price functions) <ref name="counterexample">[http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~naor/PAPERS/pvp.ps Dwork and Naor, Crypto'92], A single counter-example proving the assertion that the POW idea originated with Adam Back wrong. This is actually linked directly from the [http://www.hashcash.org/papers/ Hashcash Papers] site itself.</ref>