Neither of those are flaws, they are features. But the first one is exceptionally tarded. No shit transactions arent reversable - being reverseable would make it completely fucking useless. Thats what smart contracts are for, or a third party escrow service - which no one is stopping you from using.
gotcha. im sure that could be accomplished pretty elegantly with smart contracts but have not of any implimentations. sorry for being a dick. i can see the use case but I would still not consider its lack a 'flaw' in crypto implimentations by any means
Encryption schemes basically depend on using very large numbers with only 2 prime factors. With classical computers, it's almost impossible to get the 2 prime factors of a very large number (it would take decades/centuries) -- but it's really easy to give you two prime factors and the get the large number. Mathematically:
L= p * q (L = large number; p&q are it's only prime factors)
If I give you L you basically cannot find p&q. If I give you p & q, you can easily find L
BUT... with quantum mechanics, you can very easily find p & q -- that is, you can easily find the prime factors of a large number... IF you can build a quantum computer. The idea behind this is quite simple, but a bit beyond a 'win'-type discussion. 'Verisatium' (youtube) has done a good explanation of "Shor's Algorithm" that explains all of this.
So, basically, if quantum computers are big enough to factor large numbers, then all of encryption is, as said, 'f**ked"
As for P=NP... P=Polynomial; NP=non-Polynomial (polynomial is like 1 +x + x^2 +x^3... etc). P=NP means that Polynomial functions are just as easy to solve as non-polynomial functions. You need to think about this a little bit -- it's not intuitive!!! But, effectively, it means that... as said... factoring a big number into its prime factors (an NP problem) is as simple as factoring a polynomial problem (a P problem). That's exactly what quantum computers can potentially do.
We're a long way from there, though. Personally -- it's a pipe dream.
Your first concern could be addressed with a multisig wallet. Basically, you can have a wallet act like an escrow account. For money to be released from the account to the receiver, two out of three people have to sign a transaction. So if sender and recipient agree, money is released. If not, a third party can settle the dispute. Darknet markets use this for dispute resolution
This is because you don't really understand the modern landscape of Bitcoin as crypto is crowding out good advancements.
How you're talking about crypto isn't the same way you'd talk about our current financial system. Your example would translate to roughly expecting the Central Banks to be able to reverse your morning coffee purchase.
Yes, this is something that literally happens but it's bundled in different ways until it's a speck in the system.
For bitcoin we have lightning network, which is a 2nd layer which gives more freedom to what vendors want to do on this layer. Which this layer can stay open for a long period of time, I'm not an expert, I think basically forever but it's not nature so not literally.
So these things end up being the Visa/Mastercard level requests. Which is a 3rd or even farther step away from the base layer. As it's Central banks, commercial banks then lending institutions. Meaning we could end up with high level layers intended for more customizible transactions.
None of these things you mentioned are required for sound money. They are required for good business practices which is why businesses will make sure these measures are in place before they switch their currencies and payment rails.
I don't dislike Monero at all. Aside from Bitcoin Monero is the only non-retarded choice. That said, Monero is vastly less decentralized and always will be given the size of the Blockchain. I don't see either of your points as problems with Bitcoin.
You operate with addresses, when transferring crypto, not wallets of something with your name on it.
You could have as many addresses as you wish and nobody will know that they are yours without your consent. You could toss money between your addresses as you wish.
It is recommended from the beginning of bitcoin, that if you want to receive money from somebody and care about privacy, you better create a new address for that purpose. There is no ways to prove that new address that have no previous transactions belongs to you as a physical person without access to your wallet. Then, you could transfer money from that address to your main address or even do a chain of transfers to new addresses. Since nobody except you know that all that addresses belongs to you, it is not possible to prove that it is you, who received malicious money.
There is no way sender could send money to you if you didn't somehow give him an address.
Of course you could receive all crypto on a single address made public, but how is it differ from published bank account or whatever?
BTC as a first crytpocurrency have a lot of drawbacks, but ones you mentioned are at the bottom of the list.
If you are concerned about anonimity of BTC transactions and don't want to bother with making addresses and all that stuff, you could use Monero.
Thing with irreversibility of transactions is a feature, not a bug. Nobody could take the money you received without your consent, regardless of circumstances. I think it is one of the greatest features of cryptocurrency.
I am absolutely not a fan of crypto, but why would you see irreversibility as a problem? I think transaction reversibility is one of the biggest problems in modern commerce; it's completely unreasonable to be able to hand somebody some cash and then walk out, and then call your bank and say "can you cancel that" and screw the merchant over. That was one of the first things I actually liked about crypto back in 2011 or so, the notion that all transactions were final.
Neither of those are flaws, they are features. But the first one is exceptionally tarded. No shit transactions arent reversable - being reverseable would make it completely fucking useless. Thats what smart contracts are for, or a third party escrow service - which no one is stopping you from using.
gotcha. im sure that could be accomplished pretty elegantly with smart contracts but have not of any implimentations. sorry for being a dick. i can see the use case but I would still not consider its lack a 'flaw' in crypto implimentations by any means
Quantum AI hacking into people's crypto wallets are what someone was concerned about in the Zerohedge comment section.
just to explain this to you in simpler terms...
Encryption schemes basically depend on using very large numbers with only 2 prime factors. With classical computers, it's almost impossible to get the 2 prime factors of a very large number (it would take decades/centuries) -- but it's really easy to give you two prime factors and the get the large number. Mathematically:
L= p * q (L = large number; p&q are it's only prime factors)
If I give you L you basically cannot find p&q. If I give you p & q, you can easily find L
BUT... with quantum mechanics, you can very easily find p & q -- that is, you can easily find the prime factors of a large number... IF you can build a quantum computer. The idea behind this is quite simple, but a bit beyond a 'win'-type discussion. 'Verisatium' (youtube) has done a good explanation of "Shor's Algorithm" that explains all of this.
So, basically, if quantum computers are big enough to factor large numbers, then all of encryption is, as said, 'f**ked"
As for P=NP... P=Polynomial; NP=non-Polynomial (polynomial is like 1 +x + x^2 +x^3... etc). P=NP means that Polynomial functions are just as easy to solve as non-polynomial functions. You need to think about this a little bit -- it's not intuitive!!! But, effectively, it means that... as said... factoring a big number into its prime factors (an NP problem) is as simple as factoring a polynomial problem (a P problem). That's exactly what quantum computers can potentially do.
We're a long way from there, though. Personally -- it's a pipe dream.
Your first concern could be addressed with a multisig wallet. Basically, you can have a wallet act like an escrow account. For money to be released from the account to the receiver, two out of three people have to sign a transaction. So if sender and recipient agree, money is released. If not, a third party can settle the dispute. Darknet markets use this for dispute resolution
Explain how giving a painter $500 in cash and him walking off the job is different to sending him ETH ?
Well, you can prove the ETH went from wallet A to wallet B for a start, which is an improvement over cash.
People can also stuff money through your letterbox and then call the police and say they have bribed you
This is because you don't really understand the modern landscape of Bitcoin as crypto is crowding out good advancements.
How you're talking about crypto isn't the same way you'd talk about our current financial system. Your example would translate to roughly expecting the Central Banks to be able to reverse your morning coffee purchase.
Yes, this is something that literally happens but it's bundled in different ways until it's a speck in the system.
For bitcoin we have lightning network, which is a 2nd layer which gives more freedom to what vendors want to do on this layer. Which this layer can stay open for a long period of time, I'm not an expert, I think basically forever but it's not nature so not literally.
So these things end up being the Visa/Mastercard level requests. Which is a 3rd or even farther step away from the base layer. As it's Central banks, commercial banks then lending institutions. Meaning we could end up with high level layers intended for more customizible transactions.
None of these things you mentioned are required for sound money. They are required for good business practices which is why businesses will make sure these measures are in place before they switch their currencies and payment rails.
I don't dislike Monero at all. Aside from Bitcoin Monero is the only non-retarded choice. That said, Monero is vastly less decentralized and always will be given the size of the Blockchain. I don't see either of your points as problems with Bitcoin.
No here's a worse flaw: Listen.
When the chips are down, the bets are off, the people are eating each other and all infrastructure becomes mush, your cryptos are pointless.
that some sort of electrical & communication infrastructure is required is kind of a big flaw, too.
You operate with addresses, when transferring crypto, not wallets of something with your name on it.
You could have as many addresses as you wish and nobody will know that they are yours without your consent. You could toss money between your addresses as you wish.
It is recommended from the beginning of bitcoin, that if you want to receive money from somebody and care about privacy, you better create a new address for that purpose. There is no ways to prove that new address that have no previous transactions belongs to you as a physical person without access to your wallet. Then, you could transfer money from that address to your main address or even do a chain of transfers to new addresses. Since nobody except you know that all that addresses belongs to you, it is not possible to prove that it is you, who received malicious money.
There is no way sender could send money to you if you didn't somehow give him an address.
Of course you could receive all crypto on a single address made public, but how is it differ from published bank account or whatever?
BTC as a first crytpocurrency have a lot of drawbacks, but ones you mentioned are at the bottom of the list.
If you are concerned about anonimity of BTC transactions and don't want to bother with making addresses and all that stuff, you could use Monero.
Thing with irreversibility of transactions is a feature, not a bug. Nobody could take the money you received without your consent, regardless of circumstances. I think it is one of the greatest features of cryptocurrency.
The more virtual money is, the easier it is to steal it and hoard it. Move away from all this and put your wealth into real tangible assets .
I am absolutely not a fan of crypto, but why would you see irreversibility as a problem? I think transaction reversibility is one of the biggest problems in modern commerce; it's completely unreasonable to be able to hand somebody some cash and then walk out, and then call your bank and say "can you cancel that" and screw the merchant over. That was one of the first things I actually liked about crypto back in 2011 or so, the notion that all transactions were final.
It's also imaginary.....unplug it and you have nothing.....