I get back from vacation and suddenly my inbox is filled with misconceptions. While this is supossed to be a fairly technical mailinglist (about cryptography) it seems clear many people haven't quite understood bitcoins' workings. Let me break it down: * With a private/public key combination you can sign a message stating you're transferring a certain fraction of value (a bitcoin is what we call the 1 value). * This message you sent to nodes within the bitcoin network. * Each node checks whether or not your transaction can be executed and compiles these correct transactions into a 'block'. * Each node will try to find a proof-of-work for the block he made. Once he has it, he can ship the block off towards everywhere (as many as possible other nodes). * Recieving nodes will check the block and when they accept it, put a reference (hash) to it in their next block. The resulting chain of blocks is called the block 'chain' Now that the transaction is solidified in a block one can proof he has some amount of money, by referencing a payment to him in the block. How do the first bitcoins enter the system? By making a block one gets an award. The amount given per award is getting steadily lower. If you're thinking you can get rich quick by letting your computer solve blocks, think again! There's only one block to be solved every ten minutes, if it goes to fast the blocks will get harder, and there's a lot of people trying to solve it, you're electricity will likely cost you more than solving blocks is going to earn you. You're welcome to try though, solving a block makes transactions happen. What will happen when the awards are nearly gone? Then the total amount of bitcoins will stay nearly the same. This'll happen after quite some years. The total amount will be nearly 21 million bitcoins. The transactions will be paid for by bounty set on every transaction. As long as someone is willing to make the proof-of-work your transaction will end up in the block chain and be made permanent. That is basically the system. The whole whitepaper<http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf>isn't long or hard to understand and I highly suggest reading it. I know of only two (not dealbreaking) issues: 1. Transactions take time to happen (they are non-instant) (bank transactions are much worse though). 2. Because of the deflation all coins gotten earlier were easier to get and are now "worth" as much a block gotten now. I prefer deflation over inflation and if this really takes of the earliest of adaptors really deserved the money. On the (geo)economical side I think this is the best that every happend to the world. The bitcoin is quite violent right now, because there's still so little value being traded with them. But that will sort out and after that it'll just keep on getting more stable. "Regular" currency's (dollars, euro's, yen, whatever) are only as stable as their backing organisations or resource. Anything that goes up has got to fall, and bitcoins aren't anything, not even air! Trade has always been based on "when I give you this, what can I do with what you give me back?" and so, when people accept a certain amount of bitcoins for something, bitcoins have use and thus value. There is a wonderfull elegance in something we can trade at no costs, without any ability to cheat or adversely manipulate it's amount. Even without saying who (exactly) we are! It's propable that when you swap something as elementary as our not-wonderfull money with this it'll give some turbulance. And as with anything new, especially when it gives true freedom, people will get their panty's all up in a bunch. Usually their arguments either rest on not understanding what's going on, or claiming that this gives a security issue. The first argument I'll always counter with knowledge and logic. For the second argument I'd like to parphrase Benjamin Franklin: "He who sacrifices essential freedom for safety, deserve neither.". Surely being able to own and transfer what you own is an essential freedom. I'd prefer not going into political conversation on here but I think it far too interesting not to have it at all. -- Lodewijk "Lewis" Andre de la Porte 2011/6/13 Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Nathan Loofbourrow <njloof@gmail.com> wrote:

...

The good old market played a role here too. There are lots of investors whose risk profile dictates that they should be in "safe" investments, e.g. pension funds and old people. With the interest rates held on the floor, and Greenspan and Bernanke sitting on their chest, those safe investors started to buy up mortgages, because mortgages were big dumb investments and everyone paid their mortgage.

You just proved the point: the market was distorted, with private actors acting _within_ the distorted market parameters. Thus people who needed to make low-risk investments did make what _seemed_ like low-risk investments (after all, real estate had been a low-risk investment for decades in the U.S.), but actually were not just high-risk, but bound to fail.

You can blame the derivative sinners (pun not intended) all you like, but there's an original sin here. Everyone else was either fooled into sinning, peer-pressured into it, or outright forced, and though there surely were some who understood what was happening and sought to profit from it, you can hardly blame them either -- we all do something of the sort (if you see inflation coming and manage your money accordingly, are you ripping off all those who can't or don't know to do anything about inflation? and if so, are you a terrible person for it?).

...

After a while you run out of big dumb mortgages, and we did. So the pressure was on to create more of them. Once everyone has a mortgage, or maybe two, you start lending to folks with a risk profile that wasn't so hot anymore. The whole tranching process masked the fact that this was happening because you could still issue AAA bonds out of these and everyone bought in. tl;dr: everybody gets to wear a hat that says "dummy", whether private, public or individual.

The whole tranching thing was almost brilliant, and would have worked out fine (securitized mortgages from the 80s seem to have done fine, no?) if there had been no bubble (but in a bubble the securitization helped it along), and if all the issues in tracking the underlying loans (and thus pricing the securities) had been worked out correctly.

...

ObCrypto: sorry, got nothing.

Yeah, well, we need a sub-list for OT discussions. At Sun we used to have lists with sub-lists named the same + a "-extra" suffix, where people who wanted to participate in these sorts of long, flame war-ish, OT discussions could.

Nico -- _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography

_______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE