Участник:Earlfox

Earl N. Fox - Американский писатель, публицист, редактор новостного раздела компании BitFe

Биткоин-кошелёк для пожертвований: 1K7SSkwJrwu9B18xioR42qpiveBh2Urh4q

Here's the Мифы о биткоинах which I haven't done yet (I'm planning to translate those and put them on that page)

Биткоины ничего не стоят, потому что они ничем не обеспечены

One could argue that gold isn't backed by anything either. Bitcoins have properties resulting from the system's design that allows them to be subjectively valued by individuals. This valuation is demonstrated when individuals freely exchange for or with bitcoins. Please refer to the Subjective Theory of Value.

See also: the "Bitcoin is backed by processing power" myth.

Ценность биткоинов основана на том, сколько электричества и вычислительной мощности требуется для их генерации

This statement is an attempt to apply to Bitcoin the labor theory of value, which is generally accepted as false. Just because something takes X resources to create does not mean that the resulting product will be worth X. It can be worth more, or less, depending on the utility thereof to its users.

In fact the causality is the reverse of that (this applies to the labor theory of value in general). The cost to mine bitcoins is based on how much they are worth. If bitcoins go up in value, more people will mine (because mining is profitable), thus difficulty will go up, thus the cost of mining will go up. The inverse happens if bitcoins go down in value. These effects balance out to cause mining to always cost an amount proportional to the value of bitcoins it produces.

Биткоины являются незаконными, потому что они не являются законным платежным средством

In March 2013, the U.S. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network issues a new set of guidelines on "de-centralized virtual currency", clearly targeting Bitcoin. Under the new guidelines, "a user of virtual currency is not a Money Services Businesses (MSB) under FinCEN's regulations and therefore is not subject to MSB registration, reporting, and record keeping regulations." Miners, when mining bitcoins for their own personal use, aren't required to register as a MSB or Money Transmitter.

In general, there are a number of currencies in existence that are not official government-backed currencies. A currency is, after all, nothing more than a convenient unit of account. While national laws may vary from country to country, and you should certainly check the laws of your jurisdiction, in general trading in any commodity, including digital currency like Bitcoin, BerkShares, game currencies like WoW gold, or Linden dollars, is not illegal.

Биткоины может печатать/чеканить каждый, следовательно - они бесполезны

Bitcoins are not printed/minted. Instead, Blocks are computed by miners and for their efforts they are awarded a specific amount of bitcoins and transaction fees paid by others. See Mining for more information on how this process works.

Нет встроенного механизма отмены платежа, и это не есть хорошо

Why some people think this is bad: Chargebacks are useful for limiting fraud. The person handling your money has a responsibility to prevent fraud. If you buy something on eBay and the seller never ships it, PayPal takes funds from the seller's account and gives you back the money. This strengthens the eBay economy, because people recognize that their risk is limited and are more willing to purchase items from risky sellers.

Why it's actually a good thing: Bitcoin is designed such that your money is yours and yours alone. Allowing chargebacks implies that it is possible for another entity to take your money from you. You can have either total ownership rights of your money, or fraud protection, but not both. That said, nothing inherent in the dollar or euro or any other currency is necessary for chargebacks to be possible, and likewise, nothing prevents the creation of PayPal-like services denominated in Bitcoin that provide chargebacks or fraud protection.

The statement "The person handling your money has a responsibility to prevent fraud" is still true; the power has been shifted into your own hands. Fraud will always exist. It's up to you to only send bitcoins to trusted entities. It is possible to trust an online identity without ever knowing their physical identity; see the OTC Web of Trust.

Квантовые компьютеры нарушат безопасность биткоинов

While ECDSA is indeed not secure under quantum computing, quantum computers don't yet exist and probably won't for a while. The DWAVE system often written about in the press is, even if all their claims are true, not a quantum computer of a kind that could be used for cryptography. Bitcoin's security, when used properly with a new address on each transaction, depends on more than just ECDSA: Cryptographic hashes are much stronger than ECDSA under QC. Bitcoin's security was designed to be upgraded in a forward compatible way and could be upgraded if this were considered an imminent threat.

See the implications of quantum computers on public key cryptography here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer#Potential

The risk of quantum computers is also there for financial institutions, like banks, because they heavily rely on cryptography when doing transactions.

Bitcoin makes self-sufficient artificial intelligence possible

StorJ, a theorized autonomous agent which utilizes humans to build itself and issues autonomous payments for improvement work done, is not a conscious entity. Whatever AI is possible, is not going to be magically more possible simply because it could incentivize human behaviour with pseudonymous Bitcoin payments.

Генерация биткоинов энергетически затратна и вредна для экологии

Не более, чем расточительность добычи золота из-под земли, переплавка и придание формы. Не говоря уже о строительстве больших причудливых зданий, трате энергии на печать и чеканку различных фиатных денег, их транспортировку в бронированных автомобилях с по меньшей мере двумя охранниками, которые могли бы заняться чем-то более полезным.

В действительности биткоины являются более экономичным ресурсом, если их сравнивать с другими.

Economic Argument 1

Bitcoin mining is a highly competitive, dynamic, almost perfect, market. Mining rigs can be set up and dismantled almost anywhere in the world with relative ease. Thus, market forces are constantly pushing mining activity to places and times where the marginal price of electricity is low or zero. These electricity products are cheap for a reason. Often it’s because the electricity is difficult (and wasteful) to transport, difficult to store, or because there is low demand and high supply. Using electricity in this way is a lot less wasteful than simply plugging a mining rig into the mains indiscriminately.

For example, Iceland produces an excess of cheap electricity from renewable sources, but it has no way of exporting electricity because of its remote location. It is conceivable that at some point in future Bitcoin mining will only be profitable in places like Iceland, and unprofitable in places like central Europe, where electricity comes mostly from nuclear and fossil sources.

Market forces could even push mining into innovative solutions that have an effective electricity consumption of zero. Mining always produces heat equivalent to the energy consumed - for example, 1000 watts of mining equipment produces the same amount of heat as a 1000 watt heating element used in an electric space heater, hot tub, water heater, or similar appliance. Someone already in a willing position to incur the cost of electricity for its heat value alone could run mining equipment specially designed to mine bitcoins while capturing and utilizing the heat produced, without incurring any energy costs beyond what they already intended to spend on heating.

(Note that this is just an example; mining will not always produce heat equivalent to the energy consumed because some energy is inevitably released as electromagnetic radiation, among others.)

Economic Argument 2

When the environmental costs of mining are considered, they need to be weighed up against the benefits. If you question Bitcoin on the grounds that it consumes electricity, then you should also ask questions like this: Will Bitcoin promote economic growth by freeing up trade? Will this speed up the rate of technological innovation? Will this lead to faster development of green technologies? Will Bitcoin enable new, border crossing smart grid technologies? …

Dismissal of Bitcoin because of its costs, while ignoring its benefits, is a dishonest argument. In fact, any environmental argument of this type is dishonest, not just pertaining to Bitcoin. Along similar lines, it could be argued that wind turbines are bad for the environment because making the steel structure consumes energy.

Ratio of Capital Costs versus Electrical Costs

The BFL Jalapeno hashes at 5.5 Gh/s using 30W. That device consumes about $40 per year in electricity (using U.S. residential average of about $0.15 per kWh.) But the device costs over $300 including shipping. Thus just about a quarter of all costs over a two-year useful life goes to electricity. This compares to GPUs where more than 90% of costs over a two-year life went to electricity. Even more efficient designs can be expected in the future.

Bitcoin is not decentralized because the developers can dictate the software's behavior

The Bitcoin protocol was originally defined by Bitcoin's inventor, Satoshi Nakamoto, and this protocol has now been widely accepted as the standard by the community of miners and users.

Though the developers of the original Bitcoin client still exert influence over the Bitcoin community, their power to arbitrarily modify the protocol is very limited. Since the release of Bitcoin v0.3, changes to the protocol have been minor and always in agreement with community consensus.

Protocol modifications, such as increasing the block award from 25 to 50 BTC, are not compatible with clients already running in the network. If the developers were to release a new client that the majority of miners perceives as corrupt, or in violation of the project’s aims, that client would simply not catch on, and the few users who do try to use it would find that their transactions get rejected by the network.

There are also other Bitcoin clients made by other developers that adhere to the Bitcoin protocol. As more developers create alternative clients, less power will lie with the developers of the original Bitcoin client.

Bitcoin was hacked

In the history of Bitcoin, there has never been an attack on the block chain that resulted in stolen money from a confirmed output. Neither has there ever been a reported theft resulting directly from a vulnerability in the original Bitcoin client, or a vulnerability in the protocol. Bitcoin is secured by standard cryptographic functions. These functions have been peer reviewed by cryptography experts and are considered unlikely to be breakable in the foreseeable future.

It is safe to say that the currency itself has never been 'hacked'. However, several major websites using the currency have been hacked, often resulting in high profile Bitcoin heists. These heists are misreported in some media as hacks on Bitcoin itself. An analogy: Just because someone stole US dollars from a supermarket till, doesn’t mean that the US dollar as a currency has been 'hacked'.

Most bitcoin thefts are the result of inadequate wallet security. In response to the wave of thefts in 2011 and 2012, the community has developed risk-mitigating measures such as wallet encryption, support for multiple signatures, offline wallets, paper wallets, and hardware wallets. As these measures gain adoption by merchants and users, the number of thefts drop.

Биткоины только облегчат уклонения от налогов, что приведет к возможному падению цивилизации

Cash transactions hold the same level of anonymity but are still taxed successfully. It is up to you to follow the applicable state laws in your home country, or face the consequences.

While it may be easy to transfer bitcoins anonymously, spending them anonymously on tangibles is just as hard as spending any other kind of money anonymously. Tax evaders are often caught because their lifestyle and assets are inconsistent with their reported income, and not necessarily because government is able to follow their money.