Google Engineer Releases Open Source Bitcoin Client 280
angry tapir writes "A Google engineer has released an open source Java client for the Bitcoin peer-to-peer currency system, simply called BitcoinJ. Bitcoin is an Internet currency that uses a P2P architecture for processing transactions, avoiding the need for a central bank or payment system. Cio.com.au also has an interview with Gavin Andresen, the technical lead of the Bitcoin virtual currency system." Update: 03/23 16:22 GMT by T : Confused? BitcoinJ author Mike Hearn points out this video explanation of how Bitcoin works.
bitcoin-alt is a full client implementation (Score:5, Informative)
I've been working on a full client implementation in python https://github.com/phantomcircuit/bitcoin-alt [github.com]
Just so people know BitcoinJ is not a full p2p node.
Re:Anybody can answer this one Bitcoin flaw? (Score:3, Informative)
The thing with bitcoin is that there is no central authority to control it. New bitcoins come about by "mining", not by some central authority minting new coins, or printing new notes. Gold too has collapsed in value before.
What makes a currency worth something, is that people are willing to accept it in exchange for goods. Gold is only worth as much as it is now, because people are all like "ooh, shiny". It's intrinsic value (what it can be used for), is not anything like how much people are willing to pay for it.
Bitcoin is more like gold than traditional government issued currency. There is a fixed amount (there will never be more than 21 million bitcoins, though as that amount is divisible to eight decimal places, that's not a problem). It's value is not centrally decided.
E-gold collapsed because it was controlled by one company. Bitcoin isn't controlled by anyone. Anyone can download the "official" client, or one various mining software, and mine their own bitcoin. You could arrest everyone who has ever touched the bitcoin client source, and the blockchain would still exist.
Bitcoin, it's peer-to-peer, that's the advantage of it.
Re:will he go to jail? (Score:2, Informative)
Did you even read the wiki page you referred to?
# Barter clubs or corporate barter organizations are an example of alternative currency systems. ........
# BerkShares
# Liberty Dollar is a private currency backed by silver, designed to be a nationwide alternative currency in the United States.
The guy is releasing SILVER DOLLARS. By definition they are worth much more than whatever garbage the Fed is printing.
The real counterfeit operation is what the Fed is involved in. This guy wants sound money back, and the Fed is destroying him for it.
Re:will he go to jail? (Score:2, Informative)
So then is this a case of copyright violation? Because if it is, then given what MPAA and RIAA are trying to charge people with, I understand that the punishment in this case (15 years + 250K fine + confiscation of $7,000,000 worth of silver) is even too small.
Obviously he should be charged with like $10000 fine per coin that he released, because clearly, just like Metallica is losing money from the copyright pirates, the Fed here is hurting, right?
(In case somebody has sarcasmometer broken, this is a warning.)
But no, this guy is charged with some weird shit, and AG is implying he is a "non-violent terrorist" no less.
So if some guy, minting SILVER coins, that are remotely resembling US coins (there is a word 'dollar' on it and some variation of 'god'), and they are round, oh my, if he is charged with something like 'terrorism' for THAT, than tell me, what should Bernanke and everybody in the Fed be charged with, for actually counterfeiting fiat currency?
Because you see, his dollars are actually BACKED by silver. They ARE silver. So they are clearly valuable, unlike the garbage that US gov't is flooding the world with.
Re:will he go to jail? (Score:1, Informative)
No, it is an attempt to defraud the users of a legitimate currency with one that so closely resembles the original currency that it could be mistaken for one -- it is the equivalent of currency counterfeiting, which can indeed have severe consequences.
- you just said 'counterfeiting', here is what
U.S. Attorney Tompkins said:
âoeAttempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism, while these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country,â she added. âoeWe are determined to meet these threats through infiltration, disruption, and dismantling of organizations which seek to challenge the legitimacy of our democratic form of government.â
So is this terrorism? Because while you are calling this 'counterfeiting', I don't see that. I know what a dollar looks like and this one has words 'dollar' on it, but it's not a US dollar. It's different, it looks different, it's made out of silver, it feels different.
There are other currencies that look like US dollars, they also have words 'dollar' and they are round, etc. So again, how is a currency, that names itself dollar, which is generic, because many countries name their currencies 'dollar', how is that coin, that is made out of silver, which makes it much MORE valuable than whatever crap the Mints of the world are minting, how is that counterfeiting or terrorism?
Now, one thing is true: IF there was no OBLIGATION of merchants by the power of the state to accept the legal tender (whatever crap the Fed is printing and the Mint is coining), then guess what, merchants would NOT accept those crappy fiat currencies, but they would instead accept valuable money.
This is called Gresham's law, which works this way when there is no government, that forces acceptance of 'legal tender'.
You see, I do NOT want to hold fiat currencies, haven't held them in years. I hold actual money and then I convert between that and fiat to buy whatever. So to me, this is the most logical thing in the first place - have money that is valuable, that cannot be printed, created out of thin air by a government.
Also on another note, this man with his 'Liberty Dollars' is now called a terrorist.
Imagine what the government will call Bitcoin if it gets popular enough?
How is government going to control what people use as money?
How are the middle men going to control what people use as money and how would they ever make money on the transactions?
I expect the governments of the world to start a war on any and all currencies, that compete with their own, because at the end, those who print money have the real power.
Printing money is the real power, and if the money you print is not accepted by people as money of any value, then you have no power.
This is the ultimate problem, the way gov't sees it, that's why it's calling this terrorism and not counterfeiting, because excuse me for bringing this up once again: the 'Liberty Dollars' are actually VALUABLE as opposed to fiat crap printed by the Fed.
Re:Sounds risky (Score:5, Informative)
Written by someone who has absolutely no clue on how it works. Thanks for your incredible insight.
I've used Bitcoin and I can tell how it works. It's an elegant system for producing cryptographically signed "currency" which can be exchanged over P2P. However elegant it may be, it's also quite naive and/or dishonest to overlook some of it's shortcomings.
Namely, it is the people who got in early and mined coins or bought them at a low exchange rate who have most to gain. Latecomers have little to gain and the most to lose. If the system collapses or is regulated out of legitimacy, it is the latecomers who will suffer the most. I would not go so far as calling it a pyramid scheme but it certainly shares some similarities in terms of who benefits and who does not.
How could it collapse? In numerous ways. Various governments might start auditing / taxing people who use it as a form of currency. They might legislate against it, deeming it to be bogus financial instrument. It might get a reputation for money laundering and all the popular exchanges get shutdown along with the accounts. A rival to bitcoin might appear which is easier to use or has other benefits.Someone might develop a crack / exploit which allows them to inject "poisoned" transactions over P2P where the database is corrupted, or worse compromises Bitcoin such that wallets are wiped or drained of funds. A popular exchange is hacked and all the money is stolen. There might be a run on bitcoins if the system shows sign of collapse / compromise and the exchanges refuse to exchange bitcoins into dollars.
All of these scenarios are feasible and I think it only a matter of time before the system is hit by one of them. I have no issue with bitcoin per se but I do not see the long term viability in the system.
What is bitcoin [video] (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.weusecoins.com/ [weusecoins.com]
It was just made very recently (today!)